UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE   OF   AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL    EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


SERIES  ON  CALIFORNIA  CROPS  AND  PRICES 

ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF  THE 
BEEF  CATTLE  INDUSTRY 

EDWIN  C.  VOORHIES  AND  A.  B.  KOUGHAN 


BULLETIN  461 

November,  1928 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1928 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword 3 

Acknowledgments 3 

Summary 3 

Development  of  the  beef  cattle  industry 7 

Geographic  distribution  of  the  cattle  population 11 

Trends  in  cattle  raising 15 

Numbers  of  cattle  in  the  United  States 15 

Cattle  population  of  California 20 

Cycles  in  cattle  production 20 

Changes  in  the  proportion  of  beef  and  dairy  stock 23 

Increasing  productivity  of  cattle 24 

Calf  crop 25 

Purebred  beef  cattle 29 

Number  of  purebreds 29 

Location  of  purebred  breeders  in  California 30 

The  importance  of  the  beef  industry 30 

Feeding  conditions  in  California 33 

The  range  types  of  California 33 

Feed  costs 41 

Slaughter  of  cattle 42 

Number  and  trend  in  the  United  States 42 

Grading  and  stamping  beef 45 

Number  slaughtered  in  California 46 

Consumption  of  beef  in  the  United  States  and  foreign  countries 63 

Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  beef  cattle 67 

Annual  inventory  values  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture...     67 

Farm  prices  of  beef  cattle  in  the  United  States  and  California 72 

Quotations  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 75 

Prices  of  purebreds 83 

Meat  prices 84 

Cold  storage  of  beef,  United  States 87 

Movements  of  cattle 92 

Market  receipts  at  public  stockyards 92 

Stocker  and  feeder  shipments,  United  States 93 

Cattle  shipments,  California 94 

Foreign  trade  in  beef  and  beef  cattle 104 

The  share  of  the  Pacific  Coast  in  foreign  trade 104 

Live-cattle  exports  and  imports 106 

Exports  of  beef 112 

Imports  of  beef  and  veal 112 

The  international  trade  in  beef  and  beef  products 113 

The  foreign  situation  in  cattle  and  beef 114 

Cattle  hides 124 

Prices 125 

Imports  and  exports 126 

Disease 128 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BEEF  CATTLE  INDUSTRY 

EDWIN  C.  VOORHIESi  and  A.  B.  KOUGHAN2 


FOREWORD 

This  bulletin  represents  the  results  of  a  study  undertaken  at  the 
request  of  various  beef  cattle  interests  of  California.  The  primary 
object  has  been  to  analyze  the  chief  statistical  data  relating  to  the 
beef  cattle  industry. 

Those  interested  in  specific  topics  relating  to  the  industry  are 
asked  to  consult  the  table  of  contents  (p.  2).  For  those  who  wish  to 
quickly  obtain  the  conclusions  set  forth  in  the  body  of  the  publication, 
the  summarjr  found  in  the  first  few  pages  will  be  helpful. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Especial  thanks  are  given  to  the  officers  and  members  of  the 
California  Cattlemen's  Association  and  the  Western  Cattle  Marketing 
Association  for  their  cooperation  in  the  collection  of  much  of  the  basic 
data  appearing  in  this  publication.  Valuable  suggestions  and  im- 
portant contributions  have  been  made  by  W.  E.  Schneider,  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
and  Professor  Arthur  W.  Sampson,  Forestry  Division  of  the  College 
of  Agriculture,  University  of  California.  The  Cattle  Protection  Ser- 
vice of  the  California  State  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  the 
Animal  Husbandry  Division  of  the  College  of  Agriculture,  University 
of  California,  have  also  aided  materially.  Mention  should  be  made 
of  the  statistical  calculations  made  by  Linton  T.  Kirby  and  George 
H.  Garner,  students  in  the  College  of  Agriculture  of  the  University 
of  California. 

SUMMARY 

California  cannot  be  detached  from  the  other  western  states  in  any 
consideration  of  the  beef  cattle  industry.  In  addition,  a  view  of  the 
national  and  world  situations  must  be  obtained  in  order  to  understand 
present  domestic  conditions  and  to  formulate  future  policies. 

The  total  number  of  cattle  and  calves  in  the  United  States  has 
declined  23.8  per  cent  (trend  data)  during  the  eight  years,  January  1, 


1  Associate  Professor   of  Agricultural   Economics   and   Associate  Agricultural 
Economist  in  the  Experiment  Station. 

2  Technical  Assistant  in  Agricultural  Economics. 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

1920-January  1,  1928.  On  the  latter  date  estimates  indicated  fewer 
cattle  on  farms  and  ranges  than  at  any  other  time  since  the  beginning 
of  the  century  with  the  exception  of  January  1,  1912.  Both  1912  and 
1928  represent  low  points  in  cattle-production  cycles.  In  the  eleven 
western  states  the  decrease  (22.8  per  cent)  has  been  approximately 
the  same  as  that  for  the  nation.  Unlike  the  trend  in  the  United  States 
and  in  the  other  western  states,  the  cattle  population  of  California  has 
changed  but  slightly  during  the  past  eight  years,  a  decrease  of 
approximately  1  per  cent  having  taken  place  (trend  values).  Low 
points  in  numbers  were  reached  in  1925  and  1926,  an  actual  increase 
being  recorded  since  the  latter  date. 

Considering  only  beef  stock,  decreases  in  the  United  States  and 
the  western  states  have  been  greater  than  for  all  cattle.  Cows  over 
a  year  old  kept  for  milk  purposes  have  actually  increased.  While 
this  same  movement  has  taken  place  in  California  during  1926  and 
1927,  there  was  also  an  actual  increase  in  the  number  of  animals 
" other  than  milk  cows." 

Although  California  must  depend  upon  outside  sources  for  an 
appreciable  amount  of  its  cattle  supplies,  offerings  originating  within 
the  state  during  the  grass  season  are  at  times  more  than  ample  to 
supply  the  demand  for  slaughter.  Seasonal  offerings  are  naturally 
dependent  on  the  weather  and  the  six  months  beginning  in  April  are 
those  of  comparatively  heavy  supplies  from  within  the  state. 

The  larger  local  supplies,  particularly  during  June,  July,  and 
August,  have  the  effect  of  lowering  the  market  during  these  months. 
The  removal  of  the  surplus  from  the  market  during  the  grass  cattle 
season  appears  to  be  one  method  by  which  an  improvement  can  be 
brought  about  in  the  market  for  California  beef  cattle.  This  objective 
can  be  accomplished  partially  by  supplemental  feeding  and  by  extend- 
ing the  marketing  period  over  more  time  or  by  the  development  of 
markets  outside  the  state. 

Supplies  of  cattle  were  light  and  values  were  high  in  the  period 
prior  to  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War.  With  an  increase  in 
supplies,  cattle  values  showed  a  steady  decline  until  the  low  point 
was  reached  in  both  the  nation  and  state  in  1923.  From  then  until 
1926,  there  was  a  steady  increase  in  the  average  value  of  cattle  sold. 
Considerable  acceleration  in  values. was  shown  during  the  latter  part 
of  1927  and  the  first  ten  months  of  1928. 

During  the  past  few  years  there  has  been  a  widening  of  the  spread 
between  the  market  values  of  the  better  grades  of  slaughter  animals 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  less  desirable  on  the  other.     This  situation 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  5 

has  created  an  increased  interest  among  cattlemen  in  the  marketing 
of  their  stock  in  a  well-finished  condition,  and  during  the  last  few 
years  the  finishing  of  cattle,  particularly  with  such  feeds  as  cotton- 
seed cake,  has  apparently  gained  ground  in  California.  The  number 
of  feeder  cattle  shipped  into  California  since  1922  has  increased  more 
rapidly  than  that  of  slaughter  cattle.  This  movement  for  the  market- 
ing of  cattle  in  a  well-finished  condition  should  relieve  some  of  the 
competition  that  has  existed  on  the  markets  between  the  unfinished 
beef  stock,  often  of  poor  quality,  and  the  cull  stock  from  dairy  herds. 
This  would  bring  about  a  more  favorable  situation  for  both  classes  of 
producers. 

The  widening  of  the  margin  between  good  and  poor  cattle  is  but 
a  reflection  of  the  consumer  demand  for  the  better  cuts  of  beef.  Since 
the  War,  consumers  throughout  the  nation  have  been  willing  to  pay 
relatively  more  for  the  better  cuts  and  relatively  less  for  the  poorer 
cuts  as  compared  with  the  period  before  the  War.  Educational  work 
directed  toward  a  more  effective  use  of  the  cheaper  cuts  of  beef  might 
stimulate  profits  in  beef  production. 

At  the  present  time  there  is  an  apparent  lessened  supply  of  cattle 
throughout  the  world.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  likelihood  of 
beef  being  imported  into  this  country  in  important  quantities,  since 
an  embargo  exists  against  Argentine  beef.  A  few  small  shipments  of 
live  cattle  f rom,  Canadajiave  entered  the  country.  Shipments  of  live 
cattle  and  fresh  beef  from  Canada  to  the  United  States  were  mater- 
ially increased  during  1927.  Indications  point  to  an  increase  in  the 
importations  of  feeder  cattle  from  Mexico  in  the  near  future. 

From  the  present  outlook  abroad,  conditions  do  not  warrant  an 
expansion  of  the  cattle  industry  beyond  which  the  supplies  would 
be  forced  to  seek  an  outlet  abroad.  While  indications  point  to  some 
curtailment  of  supplies  in  certain  other  countries,  it  is  entirely  prob- 
able that  the  world  outside  of  the  United  States  will  be  in  a  position 
to  replace  these.  Furthermore,  world  prices  at  present  (September, 
1928)  have  not  shown  as  great  a  tendency  to  rise  as  have  those  in 
the  United  States. 

With  the  improvement  in  cattle  prices  and  the  relatively  low 
production  of  1927,  it  seems  highly  probable  that  the  industry  is 
now  at  the  low  point  of  the  present  production  cycle  in  the  United 
States.  Prevailing  conditions  are  similar  to  those  in  1913.  These 
cycles  in  the  past  have  extended  over  a  period  of  fourteen  to  sixteen 
years.  The  previous  low  point  in  numbers  of  cattle  in  the  United 
States  was  in  1912. 


b  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  high  and  low  points  in  numbers  of  cattle  in  California  have 
not  corresponded  with  those  in  the  United  States.  The  low  point  in 
numbers  in  California  occurred  in  1926,  or  two  years  earlier  than  in 
the  country  as  a  whole,  the  previous  low  point  having  been  in  1914. 

From  now  on  it  is  expected  that  the  trend  of  production  in  both 
the  state  and  nation  will  be  gradually  upward  for  several  years  to 
come.  The  small  numbers  of  cattle  in  the  country  coupled  with  the 
relatively  high  prices  which  have  prevailed  for  several  months  past 
are  expected  to  provide  a  strong  incentive  for  cattlemen  to  re-stock 
farms  and  ranges  and  to  increase  their  herds.  However,  the  expan- 
sion of  the  beef  cattle  population  during  the  next  two  or  three  years 
may  be  slow,  because  stock  cattle  are  high  in  price  and  many  of  the 
ranges  which  have  been  cleared  of  cattle  have  been  largely  occupied 
by  sheep.  Cattlemen  should  attempt  to  avoid  the  vicious  production 
cycles  which  have  occurred  in  the  past  and  they  should  proceed  to 
increase  herds  conservatively.  While  from  the  long-time  viewpoint 
the  cattle  situation  appears  favorable,  the  California  cattlemen,  on 
account  of  the  seasonal  demand,  should  make  such  increases  as  can  be 
marketed  when  the  demand  is  relatively  great,  as  during  the  late  fall 
and  winter  months. 

The  population  of  the  nation  and  state  is  increasing.  At  the 
present  time  the  nation  is  practically  self-sufficient  in  its  beef  supply 
and  there  is  not  room  for  as  proportionately  great  expansion  in 
the  industry  as  there  has  been  at  times  in  the  past.  History  indicates 
that  as  countries  grow  older  and  the  urban  population  increases,  the 
per-capita  consumption  of  meat  decreases.  The  established  cattleman 
in  California  with  suitable  production  facilities  ought  to  be  in  an 
especially  favorable  position  to  increase  his  production  slightly.  It 
is  not  sound  for  novices  to  enter  the  business  at  the  high  prices  now 
prevailing.  During  periods  of  remunerative  prices  there  is  always 
the  tempetation  to  overstock.  On  account  of  the  serious  depression 
through  which  the  industry  has  passed  since  the  War  the  cattlemen 
should  be  urged  to  put  their  businesses  on  a  sound  financial  footing. 
It  is  highly  probable  that  cattle  prices  will  remain  on  fairly  high 
levels  until  1930  or  1931,  and  if  history  repeats  itself,  prices  will  then 
go  lower. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 

United  States. — Cattle  were  first  brought  to  the  new  world  by  the 
Spanish  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  by  the  settlers  on  the  eastern 
shores  of  the  present  United  States  in  the  seventeenth.  The  movement 
of  cattle  from  the  more  thickly  settled  to  the  sparsely  inhabited  sec- 
tions of  the  country  began  in  early  colonial  days.  Stock  raising  in 
every  one  of  the  colonies  was  primarily  a  frontier  activity,  and  in 
colonial  times  this  frontier  had  moved  from  the  coast,  until  in  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  at  the  head  of  river  naviga- 
tion, or  the  "fall"  line.3  This  frontier  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution 
included  the  back  country  of  New  England,  the  Mohawk  Valley  in 
New  York,  the  Monongahela  Valley  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Shenandoah 
Valley  and  the  Piedmont  region  of  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas. 

After  the  Revolution,  migration  of  cattle  to  the  Ohio  Valley  took 
place  on  a  large  scale  with  a  resulting  shift  in  the  center  of  beef  pro- 
duction. With  the  building  of  canals  and  railroads  cattle  moved  west- 
ward until  in  1840  the  center  of  the  cattle  population  was  about  fifty 
miles  north  of  Charleston,  West  Virginia. 

In  the  period  before  the  Civil  War,  cattle  began  to  move  in  large 
numbers  into  Texas  and  the  states  west  of  the  Mississippi  (table  1, 
p.  8),  including  California,  although  large  numbers  were  already 
in  the  latter  state  before  the  American  occupation  in  1848.  By  1860 
the  center  of  beef  production  had  moved  to  a  point  in  western 
Kentucky. 

The  development  of  the  range  cattle  industry  on  the  Great  Plains 
from  1870-1885  forms  an  important  epoch  in  the  cattle  history  of 
the  nation  (table  2,  p.  8).  By  1880  the  Dakotas  and  the  mountain 
and  intermountain  states  were  but  sparsely  stocked  with  cattle,  but 
by  1894  nearly  all  of  the  western  territory  was  occupied  and  stocked 
close  to  its  capacity.  In  1900  the  center  of  beef  production  had  moved 
westward  to  a  point  in  eastern  Kansas. 

Since  1900  the  mountain  and  Pacific  states  have  tended  to  increase 
the  relative  number  of  all  cattle  within  their  borders,  while  the  other 
sections  of  the  country  have  either  kept  the  same  relative  positions 
or  have  experienced  relative  declines.  This  is  more  noticeable  when 
an  attempt  is  made  to  differentiate  between  dairy  cattle  and  all  other 
cattle.  By  1920  the  center  of  beef  production  had  shifted  to  a  point 
in  western  Kansas. 


3  Clemen,  R.  A.     The  American  livestock  and  meat  industry.     872  p.,  36  fig. 
The  Eonald  Press  Co.,  New  York,  1923. 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  1 

Cattle  on  Farms — Number  of  all  Cattle,  United  States,  1850-1925 
(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Division  and  state 

1850 

1860 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1920 

1925 

17,779 

25,620 

23,821 

39,676 

57,649 

67,719 

61,804 

66,653 

60,760 

Geographic  divisions: 

North  Atlantic  states 

North  central  states 

South  Atlantic  states 

South  central  states 

4,712 
4,373 
4,180 
4,163 
350 

5,204 
7,249 
3,951 
7,724 
1,491 

4,946 

8,355 

2,939 

6,520 

1,061 

37 

10 

11 

71 

58 

5 

39 

32 

47 

120 

631 

5,797 

15,834 

3,952 

9,716 

4,377 

428 

191 

521 

791 

348 

136 

133 

217 

198 

598 

815 

5,462 
24,601 

3,890 
14,500 

9,195 

1,443 
219 
934 

1,167 

1,632 
928 
278 
211 
255 
521 

1,608 

6,340 
30,621 

4,432 
17,871 

8,456 
968 
364 
687 

1,433 
992 
743 
344 
385 
395 
700 

1,445 

5,569 
27,467 

4,839 
14,664 

9,265 
943 
454 
767 

1,128 

1,082 
825 
412 
450 
402 
725 

2,077 

5,190 
31,071 

4,703 
14,658 
11,031 

1,269 
715 
875 

1,757 

1,300 
822 
506 
356 
573 
851 

2,008 

4,428 
28,861 

4,135 
12,646 
10,690 

1,322 

606 

783 

1,436 

33 

89 

1,267 

1,069 

Utah 

13 

34 

5 

28 

154 

1,180 

504 

419 

582 

42 
263 

784 

1,918 

Note. — Data  for  1925  and  1920  relate  to  January  1;  for  1910,  to  April  15;  and  for  earlier  years,  to  June  1  • 
Figures  for  censuses  prior  to  1900  were  nominally  exclusive  of  calves. 

Sources  of  data:  1850-1920.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  Cattle  on  farms— number  of  all  cattle. 
Fourteenth  Census.  U.  S.  5:  572.  1922.  1925— Dept.  Commerce  Bur.  Census,  Livestock  on  farms,  Dept. 
Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  United  States  Census  of  Agriculture:  Summary  Statistics  by  States,  1925: 
28-37.   1927. 


TABLE  2 
Percentage  Distribution  of  all  Cattle  on  Farms,  United  States,  1850-1925 


Division  and  state 

1850 

1860 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1920 

1925 

North  Atlantic  states 

26.50 
24.60 
23.51 
23.42 
1.97 

20.31 

28.29 

15.42 

30.15 

5.82 

20.76 
35.07 
12.34 
27.37 
4.45 
0.16 
0  04 
0.05 
0  30 
0  24 
0  02 
0 .16 
0.13 
0.20 
0  50 
2.65 

14.61 
39.91 
9.96 
24.49 
11.03 
1  08 
0.48 
1.31 
1.99 
0.88 
0  34 
0  34 
0  55 
0  50 
1.51 
2.05 

9.47 
42.67 
6.75 
25.15 
15.95 
2.50 
0  38 
1.62 
2.02 
2.83 
1.61 
0  48 
0.37 
0.44 
0.90 
2.79 

9.36 
45.22 
6.54 
26.39 
12.49 
1.28 
0.54 
1.01 
2.12 
1.46 
1.10 
0.51 
0  57 
0.58 
1.03 
2  13 

9.01 
44.44 
7.83 
23.73 
14.99 
1.53 
0.73 
1  24 
1.83 
1.75 
1.33 
0  67 
0.73 
0.65 
1.17 
3.36 

7.79 
46.61 
7.06 
21.99 
16.55 
1.90 
1.07 
1.31 
2.64 
1.95 
1  23 
0.76 
0.53 
0.86 
1.28 
3.01 

7.29 
47.50 

South  Atlantic  states 

6.81 
20.81 

17.59 

2.18 

1.00 

1.29 

2.36 

0.19 

0.35 

2.09 

1.76 

Utah 

0.07 

0  13 

0  02 
0  11 
0.60 
4.61 

0  83 

0.69 

0.96 

0.24 
1.48 

1.29 

3.16 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  based  upon  table  1. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  9 

During  the  past  eight  years,  1920-1928,  all  cattle  and  calves  have 
decreased.  This  decrease  has  been  general  over  the  entire  nation 
(table  5,  p.  17). 

From  the  very  beginning  of  the  cattle  industry  there  has  been  a 
tendency  for  it  to  push  westward.  Within  the  past  few  years  this 
has  been  the  result  of  a  lesser  number  of  beef  cattle  in  the  east  rather 
than  of  an  actual  increase  in  the  west.  With  the  settlement  of  the 
west  and  the  industrial  development  of  the  Pacific  section  of  the 
country  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  western  movement  can  continue. 

California. — Cattle  ranching,  the  first  industry  in  California,  was 
founded  by  the  Franciscan  padres,  who  brought  approximately  200 
cattle  into  the  state  in  1769  when  the  mission  at  San  Diego  was 
founded.  Cattle  raising  was  fostered  at  all  of  the  missions  and  the 
animals  ran  unmolested  except  for  the  round-ups.  The  sun-dried 
hides  furnished  the  leather  for  clothing  and  harness,  sewing,  rope- 
making  and  shoes,  while  the  fat  went  into  the  making  of  soap  or 
candles.  Meat  was  a  commodity  of  little  or  no  exchange  value  out- 
side of  the  immediate  needs  of  each  community.  The  government 
and  private  individuals  owned  some  cattle,  but  so  few  as  not  greatly 
to  affect  the  aggregate.  In  1778  the  mission  books  show  that  there 
were  500  cattle  in  California,  while  in  1800  there  were  74,000.  In 
1834,  the  number  of  cattle  under  mission  control  reached  423,000. 4 
This  number  was  perhaps  less  than  that  for  the  previous  decade. 
Between  1820  and  1830  certain  authors5  state  that  the  number  of 
mature  cattle  possessed  by  the  missions  was  well  above  one  million. 
With  the  secularization  of  the  missions  a  general  slaughter  of  the 
cattle  for  hides  took  place.  The  census  of  1850  showed  returns  for 
slightly  over  250,000  cattle.  By  far  the  larger  number  (approximately 
80  per  cent)  of  these  were  reported  from  the  coast  counties  of  Los 
Angeles,  Santa  Barbara,  and  Monterey.  From  an  examination  of 
the  incomplete  records  available  it  is  evident  that  the  period  1850- 
1860  was  one  of  phenomenal  growth  in  the  cattle  industry  of  Cali- 
fornia, the  greater  part  of  which  seems  to  have  occurred  during  the 
five  years  1855-1860.  Cattle  began  to  enter  southern  California  from 
Texas  during  the  former  year. 

In  1860,  the  census  showed  cattle  to  be  fairly  well  distributed  over 
the  state  (tables  10  and  11,  p.  22),  the  south  coast  and  the  Sacramento 


4  Dept.  of  the  Interior.  Report  on  the  productions  of  agriculture.  Report  on 
cattle,  sheep  and  swine  supplementary  to  enumeration  of  livestock  on  farms  in 
1880.    pp.  74-76.     1883. 

s  Soule,  Frank,  and  John  H.  Gibon.  The  annals  of  San  Francisco.  824  p. 
D.  Appleton  and  Co.,  New  York.     1855. 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Valley  areas  each  containing  approximately  25  per  cent  of  all  the 
cattle  in  the  state.  Southern  California,  the  San  Joaquin  Valley, 
and  the  north  coast  section  followed,  each  with  about  15  per  cent  of 
all  cattle  reported.  The  mountain  section  reported  only  3  per  cent 
of  the  cattle  in  1860. 

Estimates  point  to  1862  as  being  one  of  the  peak  years  in  the 
cattle  population  of  California,  with  3,000,000  head  ranging  in  the 
state. 

In  1864,  a  severe  drought  reduced  or  destroyed  great  numbers 
of  cattle.  The  permanent  settlement  of  the  state  gave  prominence  to 
farming,  and  the  pastoral  life,  which  occupied  large  tracts  for  cattle 
and  sheep,  with  a  sparsely  settled  country  and  comparatively  limited 
production,  began  to  pass  away.  The  census  returns  for  1870  gave 
evidence  of  a  great  decrease  in  the  total  number  of  cattle,  although 
both  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  mountain  counties  became  relatively 
far  more  important  (table  10,  p.  22). 

Attention  should  be  directed  toward  errors  in  using  mere  numbers 
of  animals  in  making  comparisons  (see  p.  24).  This  is  perhaps  more 
clearly  brought  out  by  comparisons  of  grass-fed  cattle  in  1855  and 
1880  on  California  pastures  made  by  the  late  Henry  Miller  of  the 
firm  of  Miller  and  Lux.6  Changes  have  been  made  in  both  the  method 
and  time  of  taking  the  census,  which  also  accounts  for  a  considerable 
percentage  of  errors. 

During  the  past  fifty  years  there  has  been  no  definite  or  pro- 
nounced shifting  of  cattle  within  the  state.  Generally  speaking,  the 
north  and  south  coast  sections  and  the  Sacramento  Valley  have  de- 
creased in  relative  importance  while  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and 
southern  California  have  gained  (table  11,  p.  22).  A  considerable 
part  of  the  increase  in  the  two  latter  areas  has  come  about  through 


G  Estimated   weight   of   grass-fed   cattle   in   1855    and   in   1880    on   California 
pastures : 


Age 

Net  weight  1855 
pounds 

Net  weight  1880 
pounds 

250-400 
350^00 
400-450 
450-500 

400-500 

550-600 

600-650 

750-800 

From  Dept.  of  the  Interior  Report  on  cattle,  sheep  and  swine  supplementary  to 
enumeration  of  livestock  on  farms  in  1880.  U.  S.  Dept.  Interior,  Report  on  the 
productions  of  agriculture,  pp.  74-76.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington, 
D.  C.     1883. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  11 

the  large  accessions  made  to  the  dairy-cow  population  in  both  of  these 
areas.  A  very  large  factor  in  the  reduced  numbers  of  cattle  in  the 
north  coast  section  of  the  state,  is  that  sheep  have  replaced  cattle. 
Many  of  the  north  coast  ranges  are  far  better  adapted  to  sheep  pro- 
duction than  to  cattle  production.  Originally  this  was  a  sheep  terri- 
tory, but  the  coyotes  drove  the  sheepmen  out.  More  recently  the 
Biological  Survey  has  cleaned  up  the  coyotes  and  the  swing  is  back 
to  sheep.  The  relative  fluctuations  in  the  mountain  counties  have  been 
larger  than  in  other  sections,  but  there  has  not  been  a  pronounced 
tendency  for  either  an  increase  or  a  decrease  in  relative  importance. 


All  Cattle  and  Calves,  Including  Milk  Cows  and  Heifers,  United  States, 

January  1.  1928 

fv. 


Fig.  1. — In  considering  the  beef  supply  of  the  United  States,  the  entire  cattle 
population  should  be  taken  into  account.  The  Mississippi  Valley  states,  together 
with  the  North  Atlantic  and  New  England  states,  contain  a  dense  cattle  popula- 
tion. When  compared  with  figure  2  it  will  be  seen  that  the  cattle  population  of 
the  northeastern  section  of  the  nation  is  primarily  used  for  milk  production. 
1  dot  =  20,000  cattle. 

(Data  from  table   1,   p.   8.) 


GEOGRAPHIC    DISTRIBUTION    OF    THE    CATTLE     POPULATION 

United  States. — On  January  1,  1928,  the  north  central  states 
claimed  over  46  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  cattle  in  the  United 
States   (fig.  1).     While  differentiation  between  cattle  used  for  milk 


12 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


purposes  and  beef  is  especially  difficult  to  make  in  this  area,  estimates 
indicate  that  this  same  area  contained  over  52  per  cent  of  the  milk 
cows  of  the  country.  On  the  addition  of  the  north  Atlantic  states 
to  this  area  the  percentage  of  total  cattle  is  raised  to  over  54  and 
that  of  milk  cows  to  nearly  65.  Population  exerts  an  influence  on 
this  distribution,  on  account  of  the  economic  advantages  of  producing 
market  milk  in  proximity  to  centers  of  human  population  (figs.  1 
and  2). 


All  Cattle  and  Calves,  not  Including  Milk  Cows  and  Heifers, 
United  States,  January  1,  1928 


IT^r-s 


fXr—r:- r— . 


7 — r~ 

|        i   . 

i  . 

•'^(y 

i"7" 

"  "y  "7"-"1 

-   ._j — 

.■•••  i  •; 

-—V — I 

^ 

Yi 

^4zt 

,    J 

•"■.  .•  r" 
■  i 
•  •   i  • 

^^s^M^X 

£4 


hrta 


Fig.  2. — The  states  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  contain  the  larger  number 
of  cattle  other  than  milk  cows.  Compare  with  figure  1.  The  states  east  of  the 
Mississippi  contain  relatively  few  cattle  used  primarily  for  beef  purposes,  when 
compared  with  the  western  area.  Points  on  the  broken  line  have  the  same  freight 
rates  for  cattle  to  the  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  markets,  on  one  hand,  and 
to  the  Kansas  City  and  Omaha  markets  on  the  other.     1  dot  =  20,000  cattle. 

(Data  calculated  by  authors  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets  5(2)  :  39— 40. 
1928.  The  number  of  milk  cows  and  heifers  in  each  state  was  subtracted  from  the  total 
number  of  cattle.) 


Numerically  the  south  central  states  are  second  in  importance  in 
the  cattle  population  (fig.  3).  In  this  area  by  far  the  greater  number 
of  cattle  is  found  in  the  two  states  of  Texas  and  Oklahoma. 

Scattered  over  the  eleven  western  states  is  approximately  one-sixth 
of  the  cattle  population  of  the  country.  The  number  of  milk  cows  in 
this  section  is  increasing  rapidly,  and  on  January  1,  1928  it  contained 
approximately  9  per  cent  of  the  total  milk  cows  in  the  nation. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  13 


Number  of  Cattle  in  the  United  States  by  Geographic  Divisions 

M////ot7  Head  


|  January  1920 

^  January  /?28 

fe 

h 

■P 

■3 

^ 

fe 

H 

Nortri 

At/anitc\ 

Nor 

Cen 

fh 

fret 

Sou  try 

A1/on1/c 

Sou  1/7 

Cenlra/  \Western 

JO 

20 
Af 

/<? 
o 


Fig.  3. — The  cattle  population  decreased  in  every  section  of  the  United  States 
between  1920  and  1928.  The  western  group  of  states  contained  16.9  per  cent  of 
all  the  cattle  in  the  United  States.  California  is  included  in  the  western  states 
and  contains  about  21  per  cent  of  the  cattle  in  this  group.  Of  the  cows  used  for 
milk  purposes,  California  has  approximately  30  per  cent  of  the  total  number  in 
this  group.  (Data  frora  table  5.) 

TABLE  3 

Percentage  of  Total  Farms  in  Certain  Subdivisions  of  the  United  States 

Reporting  Beef  Cattle  and  Cows  Milked,  1925 


Subdivision 

Per  cent  of  farms 
report  i  ng 
beef  cattle 

Per  cent  of  farms 

reporting 

cows  milked 

6  2 

77.4 

10 
22 
58 
28 
31 
35 
46 
12 
10 

0 

8 
0 
0 
2 
4 
2 
8 
8 

81.2 

88.8 

West  north  central  states 

89.3 
66  0 

76.5 

West  south  central  states 

71.9 

72.7 

61.7 

48  1 

Source  of  data:  Calculations  by  authors  based  upon  returns  of  1925  Farm  Census. 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


All  Cattle  and  Calves,  Including  Milk  Cows  and  Heifers,  California, 

January  1,  1928 


Fig.  4. — The  largest  numbers  of  all  cattle  are  found  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 
This  area  also  contains  the  largest  number  of  dairy  cattle.  Cattle  within  the 
state  destined  for  the  main  markets  of  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  must  come 
from  considerable  distances.  Dairy  cattle  have  been  taking  the  place  of  the 
strictly  beef  animals  in  the  vicinity  of  the  larger  cities,  and  this  movement  will 
probably  continue.     ]  dot  =  5,000  cattle. 

(Data  from  E.  E.  Kaufman,  Agricultural  Statistician,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ., 
cooperating  with  California  State   f>ept.   Agr.,   Sacramento,   Calif.) 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  15 

California. — The  San  Joaquin  Valley  contains  approximately  one- 
third  of  the  cattle  of  the  state  (fig.  4).  While  cattle  production  is  of 
first  importance  in  the  northern  and  eastern  mountain  counties  they 
contain  only  about  10  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  cattle  in  the 
state.  On  account  of  the  movement  of  cattle  during  the  year  the 
cattle  population  of  these  counties  necessarily  varies.  Almost  equal 
numbers  are  found  in  the  southern  part  of  California,  south  coast 
counties,  Sacramento  Valley,  and  north  coast  counties. 


TABLE  4 

Percentage  of  Farms  in  California  Eeporting  Beef  Cattle  and  Cows  Milked, 

1925 


Subdivision 

Per  cent  of  farms 
reporting 
beef  cattle 

Per  cent  of  farms 

reporting 

cows  milked 

10 .8 
14  0 
11  2 
18.4 
8  1 
5.2 
49.4 

48  1 

63.5 

43  2 

Sacramento  Valley  counties  ... 
San  Joaquin  Valley  counties.... 
Southern  California  counties.. 
Mountain  counties 

53.0 
55.9 
31 .9 

72.7 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  on  basis  of  1925  Farm  Census. 


\ 

TREND   IN   CATTLE    RAISING 

Numbers  of  Cattle  in  the  United  States. — Until  comparatively 
recent  times  cattle  of  the  beef  and  dairy  breeds  were  not  clearly  differ- 
entiated, and  thousands  of  the  former  are  still  used  as  milk  cows. 
Furthermore,  census  data  in  the  past  have  distinguished  between 
"dairy  cattle"  or  "milk  cows"  and  "other  cattle."  Just  how  much 
dependence  can  be  placed  on  "other  cattle"  as  a  measure  of  beef 
cattle  is  not  known.7  "Other  cattle"  includes  that  portion  of  the 
dairy  population  not  actually  producing  milk  at  the  time  the  census 
figures  were  collected.  Hence  dairy  bulls,  dry  cows,  young  heifers, 
and  steers,  of  dairy  blood  would  be  included  in  the  list  of  "other 
cattle,"  while  under  the  term  "milk  cows"  were  included  many  cows 
of  beef  breeding.  Further  complications  arise  from  the  fact  that  the 
dates  of  the  census  enumeration  are  not  the  same  for  each  census  year. 
In  addition,  the  beef  animal  of  today  is  far  more  highly  developed 


7  Wentworth,    Edward   W.      The   changes    in    the    center    of    beef   production. 
Armour  and  Co's  Monthly  Letter  to  Animal  Husbandmen.     2  pp.     Nov.  1,  1921. 


16 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


than  formerly  (p.  24).  It  is,  therefore,  not  strictly  accurate  to  make 
comparisons  of  numbers  of  ''other  cattle"  over  a  period  of  years  as 
has  often  been  done. 

Even  though  the  basic  figures  of  cattle  population  were  dependable 
in  themselves,  they  are  inadequate  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the 
trend  of  production.  They  are  only  annual  inventory  figures,  and 
these  without  any  allowances  for  changes  in  turnover  when  there 
has  been  a  great  change  are  very  apt  to  lead  to  erroneous  conclusions. 


Total  Number  of   Cattle,   1900-1928,  and  Number,  of  Cattle   Other  than 
Milk  Cows,  1920-1928,  United  States 

Millions  of  Cotf/e 


At/  Cattle 

y. 



\  , 

N 

Cattle   other 
thonMIMCows 



«2 

-" 

**■*> 

V 

\ 

'>.^ 

X 

CIL_ 

Yig.  5. — The  statement  is  commonly  made  that  the  production  cycle  of  cattle 
in  the  United  States  is  from  14  to  16  years  in  length.  From  revised  cattle- 
populations  statistics  it  will  be  noted  in  the  above  figure  that  there  is  only  one 
production  cycle.  The  period  between  the  peak  years,  1904-1918,  is  14  years. 
Undoubtedly  1928  will  be  found  to  be  a  low  point,  and  if  this  is  the  case  the 
period  between  the  low  points  1912-1928  is  16  years.  From  1928  onward  for  a 
few  years  probabilities  are  that  the  cattle  population  will  increase.  Compare  with 
cycles  of  value  (fig.  20,  p.  68).  It  should  be  noted  that  the  number  of  cattle  other 
than  milk  cows  has  decreased  more  rapidly  since  1920  than  the  total  number  of 
cattle.  Revised  data  ha#e  been  furnished  to  the  authors  by  the  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.  They  are  believed  to  be  substantially  accurate,  but  publication  is  not  yet 
authorized. 

(Data  from  table  5  and  from  calculations  made  by  authors.) 


While  the  census  data  are  valuable  in  showing  changes  of  a  most 
general  nature,  it  is  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  obtain  from  them 
information  relative  to  trends  and  cycles  of  the  cattle  population. 
Estimates  of  the  year  to  year  changes  based  upon  census  data  have 
been  made  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture8  (table  5). 


s  Roberts,  John.  Food  animals  and  meat  consumption  in  the  United  States. 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Cir.  241:  1-22.  1926.  Later  revision  of  data  sent  to  author 
from  John  Roberts,  Oct.  14,  1927. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


17 


TABLE  5 

Estimated  Number  of  all  Cattle  and  Calves  on  Farms  and  Ranges, 

United  States,  January  1,  1920-1928 

(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Division  and  state 


United  States ... 
North  Atlantic 
North  central... 
South  Atlantic 
South  central ... 
Western 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming  .... 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Washington. 

Oregon 

California 


1920 


68,871 

5,190 

31,111 

4,978 

15,426 

12,166 

1,370 

715 

950 

1,757 

1,700 

1,150 

556 

456 

613 

891 

2,008 


1921 


67,184 

5,079 

29,976 

4,907 

15,419 

11,803 

1,269 

675 

859 

1,683 

1,800 

1,135 

535 

436 

583 

828 

2,000 


1922 


67,264 

5,054 

29,836 

4,744 

15,546 

12,084 

1,380 

685 

898 

1,680 

1,900 

1,090 

525 

445 

587 

846 

2,048 


1923 


66,156 

4,923 

29,991 

4,615 

14,938 

11,689 

1,360 

685 

881 

1,614 

1,500 

1,138 

550 

460 

587 

834 

2,080 


1924 


64,507 

4,709 

30,128 

4,432 

13,820 

11,418 

1,360 

705 

825 

1,540 

1,350 

1,116 

540 

440 

586 

814 

2,142 


1925 


61,996 

4,475 

29,207 

4,217 

13,266 

10,831 

1,340 

650 

795 

1,465 

1,290 

1,069 

507 

419 

582 

796 

1,918 


1926 


59,122 

4,396 

28,260 

3,895 

12,368 

10,203 

1,280 

624 

787 

1,377 

1,213 

863 

482 

385 

558 

716 

1,918 


1927 


56,872 

4,363 

26,490 

3,746 

12,432 

9,835 

1,152 

605 

771 

1,418 

1,189 

705 

472 

350 

530 

687 

1,956 


1928 

55,696 

4,471 

25,738 

3,801 

12,275 

9,411 

1,117 

588 

764 

1,317 

1,070 

546 

472 

343 

519 

680 

1,995 


Sources  of  data:  1920-1924,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  All  cattle  and  calves,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets 
3:  38.  1926.  1925-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  All  cattle  and  calves.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets  4: 
42.   1927.   1928,  ibid  5:  39.   1928. 


TABLE  6 

Percentage  Distribution  of  all  Cattle  and  Calves  on  Farms  and  Ranges, 
United  States,  1920-1928 


Division  and  state 


1920 


1921 


1922 


1923 


1924 


1925 


1926 


1927 


1928 


North  Atlantic  states. 
North  central  states... 
South  Atlantic  states 
South  central  states... 
Western  states 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


7.54 
45.17 

7.23 
22.40 
17.66 

1.99 

1  04 
1.38 

2  55 
2.47 
1.67 
0  81 
0  66 
0.89 
1.29 
2.92 


7.56 
44.62 

7.30 
22.95 
17.57 

1  89 

1  00 

1  28 

2  51 
2.68 
169 
0.80 
0.66 
0.87 
1  23 
2.98 


7.51 

44.36 
7  05 
23.11 
17.97 
2  05 
1.02 
1.34 
2  50 
2.82 
1.62 
0.78 

0  66 
0.87 

1  26 
3.04 


7.44 

45.33 

6.98 

22.58 

17.67 

2.06 

1.04 

1.33 

2  44 

2  27 

1.72 

0.83 

0  70 
0.89 

1  26 
3.14 


7.30 
46.71 

6.87 
21.42 
17.70 

2  11 

1  09 

1  28 
2.39 

2  09 
1  73 
0.84 
0.68 
0.91 
1  26 

3  32 


7.22 
47.11 

6.80 
21.40 
17.47 

2.16 

1  05 

1  28 
2.36 

2  08 
1.72 
0.82 
0.68 
0.94 
1.28 
3.09 


7.44 
47.79 
6  60 
20.92 
17.25 
2.16 
1  06 
1.33 
2.33 
2.05 
1.46 
0  82 
0.65 
0.94 
1.21 
3.24 


7.68 
46.57 

6.59 
21.86 
17.30 

2  03 

1  06 
1.36 
2.49 

2  09 
1  24 
0.83 
0  62 

0  93 

1  21 
3.44 


8.04 
46.20 
6.83 
22.03 
16.90 
2.01 
1.06 
1  37 
2.36 
1.92 
0.98 
0  85 
0  62 
0.93 
1.22 
3.58 


Source  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  based  upon  table  5. 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Recently  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  has  tentatively 
revised  all  previous  yearly  estimates.  These  data  are  plotted  in 
figure  5.  While  the  exact  data  have  not  yet  been  made  public,  the 
trend  as  depicted  is  probably  more  accurate  than  that  which  can  be 
obtained  from  available  statistics.  The  plotted  data  represent  "all 
cattle,"  as  difficulties  are  encountered  in  endeavoring  to  separate  beef 
and  dairy  animals. 

TABLE  7 

Estimated  Number  of  Cattle  and  Calves  on  Farms  and  Ranges,  Minus  the 

Estimated  Number  of  Cows  and  Heifers  Over  One  Year  Kept  for 

Milk  Purposes,  United  States,  1920-1928 

(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Division  and  state 

United  States 

North  Atlantic  states... 

North  central  states 

South  Atlantic  states- 
South  central  states 

Western  states 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


1920 


1921 


1922 


1923 


1924 


1925 


1926 


1927 


1928 


43,026 

1,203 

18,185 

2,880 

10,612 

10,146 

1,192 

569 

885 

1,511 

1,630 

1,106 

469 

439 

315 

651 

1,379 


41,621 

1,188 

17,072 

2,820 

10,765 

9,776 

1,088 

526 

791 

1,443 

1,724 

1,099 

449 

418 

280 

590 

1,368 


41,453 

1,222 

16,697 

2,656 

10,884 

9,994 

1,195 

526 

828 

1,430 

1,819 

1,048 

434 

425 

281 

610 

1,398 


39,946 

1,059 

16,629 

2,516 

10,247 

9,495 

1,168 

520 

806 

1,364 

1,422 

1,093 

454 

439 

266 

586 

1,377 


38,115 

958 

16,555 

2,347 

9,142 

9,113 

1,151 

525 

748 

1,281 

1,277 

1,069 

437 

417 

261 

551 

1,396 


35,320 

810 

15,226 

2,180 

8,621 

8,483 

1,117 

452 

715 

1,193 

1,215 

1,022 

399 

394 

242 

527 

1,207 


33,011 

833 

14,430 

1,933 

7,968 

7,847 

1,053 

423 

703 

1,106 

1,136 

823 

373 

359 

228 

458 

1,185 


31,006 

868 

12,933 

1,801 

7,943 

7,461 

936 

397 

687 

1,130 

1,111 

660 

362 

324 

202 

429 

1,223 


29,573 

910 

12,182 

1,790 

7,669 

7,022 

908 

375 

677 

1,025 

991 

502 

357 

317 

194 

420 

1,256 


Sources  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  based  upon  the  following:  1920-1924,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
All  cattle  and  calves,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets  3:  38.  1926.  1925-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  All 
cattle  and  calves,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets  4:  42.    1927,  1928,  ibid.  5:  39-40.   1928. 


From  the  evidence  presented,  the  actual  numbers  of  all  cattle  on 
hand  increased  at  a  rapid  and  regular  rate  from  the  close  of  the  Civil 
War  until  1894.  The  rate  of  growth  was  apparently  equal  to  that 
of  the  human  population.  Since  the  latter  date  the  human  population 
has  grown  far  more  rapidly  than  that  of  cattle  (fig.  7).  That  these 
data  are  clearly  not  an  index  of  output  can  be  seen  with  reference  to 
the  increased  productivity  of  American  cattle  herds  (p.  24).  In 
considering  output  attention  should  also  be  given  to  exports  (p.  106). 

Although  a  strict  differentiation  into  beef  and  dairy  cattle  is 
impossible,  such  estimates  as  have  been  made  point  to  the  greater 
relative  and  actual  increase  of  cattle  kept  for  dairy  purposes  as  com- 
pared with  those  set  apart  for  beef.  While  it  is  probable  that  for  a 
few  years  during  the  war  the  latter  exceeded  the  former,  the  reverse 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


19 


situation  has  been  in  effect  during  the  past  five  years.  There  can  be 
but  little  doubt  that  since  1920  the  number  of  strictly  beef  animals 
has  declined  while  those  kept  for  dairy  purposes  have  increased 
slightly. 

TABLE  8 

Percentage  of  the  Estimated  Number  of  Cattle  and  Calves  on  Farms  and 

Banges  Minus  the  Estimated  Number  of  Cows  and  Heifers  Over 

One  Year  Kept  for  Milk  Purposes,  United  States,  1920-1928 


Division  and  state 


North  Atlantic  states 
North  central  states ... 
South  Atlantic  states 
South  central  states ... 
Western  states 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


1920 


2.80 
42.27 
6.69 
24.66 
23.58 
2.77 
1.32 
2.06 
3.51 
3.79 
2.57 
1.09 
1.02 
0.73 
1.51 
3.21 


1921 


1922 


2.95 
40.28 
6.41 
26.26 
24.11 
2.88 
1.27 
2  00 
3.45 
4.39 
2.53 
1  05 
1.03 
0.68 
1.47 
3.37 


1923 


1924 


2.51 
43.43 
6.16 
23.99 
23.91 
3.02 
1.38 
1.96 
3.36 
3  35 
2.80 
1.15 
1.09 
0.68 
1.45 
3.66 


1925 


2.29 
43.11 
6.17 
24.41 
24.02 
3.16 
1.28 
2.02 
3.38 
3.44 
2.89 
1.13 
1  12 
0.69 
1.49 
3.42 


1926 


2.52 
43.71 

5.86 
24.14 
23.77 

3.19 


1.28 
2.13 
3.35 
3.44 
2.49 
1.13 
1.09 
0  69 
1.39 
3.59 


1927 


2.80 
41.71 
5.81 
25.62 
24.06 
3.02 
1.28 
2.22 
3.64 
3.58 
2.13 
1 .17 
1  05 
0.65 
1.38 
3.94 


1928 


3  08 
41.19 
6  05 
25.93 
23.75 
3.07 
1  27 
2.29 
3.47 
3.35 
1.70 
1  21 
1.07 
0.66 
1.42 
4.24 


Source  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  based  upon  table  7. 


Total  Number  of  Cattle,   1910-1928,   and  Number  of  Cattle  Other  Than 
Milk  Cows.  1920-1928,  California 

Mil '/ions  of  Cattle 


Z.2 
2.0 
1.8 
1.6 
1.4 
l.Z 


1.0 


f 

rAlf 

7ott 

le 

^ 

x^ 

S* 

5"~" 

^  ^ 

N 

<*     Other  Cottle 
than  Mi tk  Cow  J 

\ 

•  MM 

. 

^ 

1     I     1 

1 

r~ 

r 

1 

1910 


1915 


1920 


1925 


Fig.  6. — From  the  present  evidence  the  movements  in  the  cattle  population  of 
California  do  not  correspond  with  those  in  the  United  States.  The  cattle  popula- 
tion in  California  has  shown  less  tendency  to  decrease  than  that  in  the  nation. 
During  1926  and  1927  an  actual  increase  is  recorded.  Since  1920,  the  cattle  other 
than  milk  cows  have  decreased  more  rapidly  than  all  cattle.     (Data  from  table  9.) 


20  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Cattle  Population  of  California. — Comparable  data  for  the  num- 
ber of  cattle  in  California  previous  to  1910  are  not  available.  Census 
data  would  indicate  that  the  cattle  industry  of  the  state  has  more 
than  held  its  relative  place  in  the  industry  of  the  country  as  a  whole 
during  the  past  seventy-five  years.  Since  1910  the  number  of  all 
cattle  in  the  state  has  been  remarkably  stationary  with  the  exception 
of  the  three  years  1917,  1918,  and  1924  (fig.  6).  A  considerable  drop 
occurred  during  the  latter  year,  owing  no  doubt  to  the  prevalence 
of  the  foot  and  mouth  disease. 

With  the  increase  in  the  number  of  milk  cows  in  the  state  there 
has  unquestionably  been  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  animals  kept 
for  strictly  beef  purposes.  Since  1920  estimates  of  milk  cows  have 
been  made.  The  number  of  cattle  other  than  milk  cows  shows  a  dis- 
tinct decline  since  the  latter  date  (tables  7  and  8).  While  data  over 
such  brief  periods  of  time  do  not  take  account  of  cyclical  movements, 
nevertheless  they  give  an  opportunity  to  stockmen  and  others  to 
observe  current  changes. 

Data  on  the  consumption  of  beef  (p.  63)  and  dairy  products9 
would  partially  confirm  the  belief  that  cattle  of  the  dairy  breeds  have 
been  becoming  proportionately  more  numerous  than  those  of  the  beef 
breeds.  The  question  relative  to  the  quality  of  beef  produced  is 
naturally  raised  in  connection  with  this  movement  (see  p.  45).  Data 
are  available  giving  evidence  of  the  poor  quality  of  beef  from  dairy 
cattle  as  compared  with  that  from  animals  of  the  beef  breeds. 

Cycles  in  Cattle  Production. — Conclusions  relative  to  the  trend 
of  the  cattle  population  are  drawn  erroneously  at  times,  owing  to  the 
failure  to  take  into  account  cyclical  movements,  which  we  know  have 
been  fairly  definite  in  the  past.  Revised  data  on  the  cattle  popula- 
tion since  1900  (fig.  5)  show  only  one  well-defined  cycle,  although 
from  a  study  of  the  cycles  in  purchasing  power  of  cattle  (fig.  20) 
and  from  a  study  of  cattle  receipts  on  the  Chicago  market,  cycles  in 
numbers  of  animals  have  existed  for  a  long  period  of  time.  From  all  of 
the  available  evidence  the  cattle  cycle  seems  to  cover  a  period  of  from 
14  to  16  years.  With  improved  methods  of  management  and  feeding 
and  the  consequent  placing  of  cattle  on  the  market  at  an  earlier  age, 
this  period  may  in  the  future  be  shortened. 

From  1900  to  1904,  there  was  a  distinct  upward  movement  in 
cattle  population.  This  latter  date  agrees  closely  with  that  for  the 
low  point  in  values.     From  1904  to  1912  a  downward  movement  in 


9  Voorhies,   Edwin   C.     Economic   aspects   of   the  dairy  industry.      California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  437:  64-72.     1927. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OP    THE   BEEP   CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


21 


E 

numbers  is  perceptible,  which  was  followed  by  a  rise  reaching  a  high 

point  in  1918.  Since  the  latter  date  there  has  been  a  distinct  down- 
ward trend.  If  it  were  possible  to  eliminate  all  but  strictly  beef 
animals  these  movements  would  be  even  more  pronounced.  The  high 
point  in  values  did  not  occur  until  1915  (fig.  20).  Comparatively 
high  inventories  of  cattle  for  five  years,  1918-1922,  forced  values  to 
low  points,  the  low  point  apparently  having  been  reached  on  January 
1,  1925.  Since  the  latter  date  valuations  have  been  going  up  while 
numbers  have  been  moving  in  the  opposite  direction.  At  present  the 
trend  in  cattle  numbers  has  started  to  rise,  and  if  history  repeats 
itself  this  upward  trend  should  continue  for  a  few  years.  (Compare 
with  data  relative  to  cycles  in  the  purchasing  power  of  beef  cattle, 
p.  67,  and  fig.  20,  p.  68). 

TABLE  9 
Number  of  all  Cattle  in  California,  January  1,  1910-1928;  Milk  Cows  and 
Other  Cattle,  January  1,  1920-1928 
(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


All 

All 

Dairy 

Other 

Year 

cattle 

Year 

cattle 

cattle 

cattle 

1910 

2,077 

1920 

2,008 

515 

1,493 

1911 

2,025 

1921 

2,000 

530 

1,470 

1912 

2,030 

1922 

2,048 

550 

1,498 

1913 

1,965 

1923 

2,080 

580 

1,500 

1914 

1,940 

1924 

2,142 

595 

1,547 

1915 

2,037 

1925 

1,918 

579 

1,339 

1916 

2,098 

1926 

1,918 

596 

1,322 

1917 

2,156 

1927 

1,956 

596 

1,360 

1918 

2,171 

1928 

1,995 

602 

1,393 

1919 

2  083 

Source  of  data:  1910-1927  given  to  authors  by  E.  E.  Kaufman,  State  Statistician,  State  Dept.  of 
Agriculture,  Sacramento,  Calif.,  Oct.  11,  1927.   1928,  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets  5:  39^0.   1928. 


Information  for  California  is  not  available  on  numbers  of  cattle 
for  a  sufficiently  long  period  of  time  to  draw  conclusions  with  refer- 
ence to  cycles  in  cattle  population  in  the  state.  The  number  of  cattle 
in  the  state  is  small  compared  with  the  total  in  the  nation  and  indica- 
tions are  that  during  the  past  few  years  it  has  not  followed  the  num- 
ber in  the  nation  very  closely. 

Prevention  of  Cyclical  Movements. — Efforts  to  avoid  the  vicious 
influences  of  cycles  in  economic  life  have  long  occupied  the  attention 
of  economists,  statesmen,  and  others.  In  many  of  the  agricultural 
industries  control  over  production  is  difficult  to  accomplish  on  account 
of  the  large  number  of  individual  producers  and  on  account  of  the 
dependence  of  agricultural  production  on  the  forces  of  nature.    Some 


22 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


of  the  extreme  movements  in  the  cattle  industry  in  the  past  might 
have  been  averted  if  producers  had  been  informed  of  conditions  in 
the  industry  and  if  they  had  acted  accordingly.  High  prices  tend  to 
bring  on  increases  in  herds  while  low  prices  act  in  the  opposite  direc- 
tion. If  by  the  use  of  widespread  and  accurate  statistical  information, 
cattlemen  could  learn  to  exercise  the  utmost  caution  in  either  increas- 
ing or  decreasing  herds,  favorable  results  would  accrue.  At  the 
present  time  with  favorable  prices  comes  the  danger  of  over-enthusiasm 
for  increases  in  herds.  The  line  of  growth  of  the  dairy  cow  popula- 
tion of  the  country  is  indicative  of  the  manner  in  which  the  cattle 
population  might  increase  or  decrease  without  bringing  on  extremes 
in  production.  It  is  true  that  high  labor  requirements  have  had  a 
share  in  keeping  dairy  cattle  numbers  in  line  with  the  human  popula- 
tion. Furthermore,  many  milk  cows  may  be  used  for  either  beef  or 
milk. 

TABLE  10 
Percentage  Distribution  op  all  Cattle  in  California,  1860-1925 


Section 

1860 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1920 

1925 

13.27 
25.57 
26.79 
15  15 

15.93 
3.29 

16.30 
19.98 
20.86 
24.35 

9.05 
9.45 

18.92 
20  65 
16  18 
23.20 
7.03 
14.03 

15  75 
23.61 
14.84 
22.92 
11.69 
11.18 

14.88 
16.07 
13.68 
28.66 
12.68 
13.90 

10.30 
17.91 
13.22 
35.65 
14.09 
8.83 

11.19 
16  19 
15.17 
34.03 
14  05 
9.38 

12  17 

14.55 

14  44 

San  Joaquin  Valley 

32.68 
15  99 

Mountain 

10.17 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  based  upon  census  returns. 


Percentage  Distribution  of 


TABLE  11 

Other  Cattle"*  in  California,  1860-1925 


Section 

1860 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1920 

1925 

11  71 
26.13 
25.96 
14.75 
18.30 
3  15 

11  97 
18.22 
19.63 
29.04 
10.73 
10.43 

13  13 
18.09 
15  51 
29.30 
6.75 
17.22 

13.18 
22  51 

14  41 
25.64 
11.71 
12.55 

11.33 
14.85 
13.49 
32.15 
12.05 
15.96 

8.26 
17.71 
13  02 
37.28 
13.91 

9.82 

8.81 
16.27 
16.11 
33.88 
13.62 
11.31 

10  17 

14.32 

15.93 

San  Joaquin  Valley 

Southern  California 

Mountain 

32.22 
14  29 
13  07 

*  Other  cattle  =  total  cattle  minus  dairy  cows. 

Source  of  data:  Computations^by  authorsbased  upon  census  returns. 

Those  contemplating  the  building  of  a  cattle  enterprise  and  those 
already  in  the  business  should  realize  that  if  the  same  cyclical  move- 
ments continue  in  the  future  as  have  existed  in  the  past  it  will  be 
absolutely  necessary  for  cattlemen  during  the  favorable  price  years 
to  accumulate  a  sufficient  surplus  to  carry  over  the  lean  years  which 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  23 

will  perhaps  come.  This  fact  should  be  impressed  on  the  consumer, 
who  is  oftentimes  led  to  believe  that  the  producer  of  livestock  is  piling 
up  great  wealth  when  wholesale  prices  take  a  perceptible  advance. 
At  this  time  every  effort  should  be  utilized  to  place  the  cattle  business 
on  a  sound  basis.  During  favorable  years  the  cattleman  should  see 
to  it  that  his  fences  are  put  in  good  repair,  his  corrals  and  chutes  are 
properly  constructed  and  in  good  repair,  his  water  adequately  de- 
veloped, and  generally  speaking,  all  of  his  equipment  requiring  cash 
outlay  is  in  Al  condition. 

Changes  in  the  Proportion  of  Beef  and  Dairy  Stock. — Accompany- 
ing the  decrease  in  all  cattle  and  calves  over  the  past  eight  years  has 
been  an  actual  increase  in  the  numbers  of  milk  cows  and  of  heifers 
being  retained  for  milk  cows.  On  January  1,  1920,  the  ratio  of  the 
combined  number  of  milk  cows  and  heifers  to  the  total  cattle  in  the 
country  was  37.6  per  cent  and  seven  years  later  it  was  45.0  per  cent. 
In  the  eleven  western  states  corresponding  data  were  16.6  per  cent 
and  23.9  per  cent,  and  for  California  they  were  31.3  per  cent  and 
37.5  per  cent. 

The  data  in  tables  5  and  7  bring  out  the  contrasting  trends  in  beef 
production  and  in  dairy  production  in  the  United  States,  the  western 
states,  and  in  California.  While  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  definite 
segregation  between  the  numbers  of  beef  and  dairy  types  of  cattle, 
the  steady  increase  in  milk  stock  as  against  the  decreases  in  total 
cattle  and  calves  indicate  that  stock  used  exclusively  for  beef  purposes 
has  decreased  in  the  eleven  western  states  in  the  past  eight  years 
(table  7). 

In  addition  to  milk  cows  and  dairy  heifers  over  one  year  old,  there 
are  a  large  number  of  dairy  heifer  and  bull  calves  kept  on  farms. 
Thus  the  total  number  of  animals  being  kept  incident  to  milk  produc- 
tion exceeds  the  number  represented  by  cows  and  heifers  over  one 
year  old.  More  than  one-third  of  the  cattle  and  calves  slaughtered 
in  the  western  states  originate  on  dairy  farms  and  from  milk  stock 
on  general  farms,  but  a  large  number  of  these  are  slaughtered  on 
farms  and  locally.10  While  it  is  true  that  many  of  these  animals  are 
of  beef  and  not  dairy  stock,  the  dairy  improvement  campaign  con- 
ducted by  the  Agricultural  Extension  Divisions  in  the  eleven  western 
states  has  undoubtedly  served  in  making  for  a  larger  percentage  of 
dairy  blood  in  the  animals  being  utilized  for  milk  production.11 

io  Scott,  G.  A.  Cattle  in  the  seventeen  western  range  states.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  mimeographed  report  issued  from  Salt  Lake  City  Office,  May  24, 
1927. 

ii  Voorhies,  Edwin  C.  Economic  aspects  of  the  dairy  industry.  California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  437:  1-192.     1927. 


24 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  diminishing  supplies  of  strictly  beef-type  animals  against  the 
increasing  supplies  of  slaughter  stock  from  dairy  herds,  would  seem 
to  suggest  that  beef-cattle  producers  should  be  given  an  opportunity 
of  disposing  of  well-finished  beef  at  a  higher  premium  over  common 
beef  than  formerly.  The  situation  raises  problems  in  connection  with 
the  retailing  of  meat  which  are  being  partially  solved  (p.  45). 


Per-Capita  Cattle  Population   (Including  Calves),  and  Per-Capita 

Slaughter  op  Cattle  and  of  Calves,  United  States, 

1900-1927 


J9/J 


A/umber  of Coft/e 

pe 

r  C  opitc 

no 

70 

60 

f 

'tv-  -  Cop 

/to 

Cor 

f/f 

Poo 

J.'at 

on 

SO 

^^ 

^ 

-Pe 

r-Cc 

ip/fe 

J/o 

jqh 

'(?/-  C 

■>fCc 

yftle 

■«=> 

=f= 

— 

. , 

.— 

— 

o 

P 

9r-i 

"a pi 'to  S/aug 

hie/ 

A — 1 

of 

Co/ves 

/92S      1927 


Fig.  7. — During  the  period  1900-1927,  the  number  of  cattle  (including  calves) 
per  capita  in  the  United  States  decreased  approximately  18  per  cent,  while  the 
per-capita  slaughter  of  cattle  decreased  10  per  cent  and  the  number  of  calves 
slaughtered  per  capita  increased  by  almost  30  per  cent.  Compare  with  the  per- 
capita  consumption  of  beef  and  veal  (fig.  19).  (Data  calculated  by  authors.) 

Increasing  Productivity  of  Cattle. — Comparisons  between  num- 
bers of  livestock  are  not  always  reliable  indices  for  comparisons  of 
product  output.  Such  comparisons  leave  out  of  account  the  efficiency 
of  the  animals  concerned.  Improved  methods  of  breeding  and  liver 
stock  management  have  unquestionably  had  a  share  in  increasing  the 
productivity  of  the  beef  herds  of  this  country.  The  discrepancy 
between  increases  in  numbers  and  actual  production  has  been  pointed 
out  in  a  recent  study  of  the  dairy  industry.12    Although  many  factors 

12  Voorhies,  Edwin  C.  Economic  aspects  of  the  dairy  industry.  California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  437:  1-192.     figs.  1-44.     1927. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF   CATTLE.  INDUSTRY  25 

complicate  the  local  situation  in  California,  indications  point  to  an 
increased  output  per  animal  in  this  state. 

The  number  of  cattle  per  capita  in  the  United  States  dropped  from 
0.718  head  in  1900  to  0.589  head  in  1927,  a  decrease  of  0.129  head  per 
capita,  or  18.06  per  cent  (fig.  7).  These  values  are  calculated  from 
the  trend13  of  the  per-capita  cattle  population.  Comparisons  between 
actual  data  for  the  two  years  in  question  show  a  decrease  of  over 
37  per  cent.  The  strictly  beef  cattle  population  has  decreased  rather 
rapidly,  although  the  number  of  cows  used  for  milk  purposes  has 
actually  increased  during  this  period.14  The  per-capita  cattle  slaughter 
has  during  the  same  period  dropped  from  0.142  to  0.127  head15  per 
person,  or  10.5  per  cent,  while  calf  slaughter  has  actually  increased 
from  0.057  to  0.074  head  per  capita,10  or  30.1  per  cent. 

This  again  indicates  a  decrease  in  the  per-capita  consumption  of 
beef,  which  in  1900  was  67.8  pounds,  while  in  1927  it  was  58.0  pounds. 
This  decrease,  11.7  per  cent  (trend  values),  which  is  less  than  the 
reduction  in  total  cattle  slaughter,  can  be  accounted  for  in  part  by 
the  increased  efficiency  of  the  animals. 

Lighter  Weights. — Since  1893,  at  Chicago,  there  has  been  a  distinct 
trend  toward  lighter  weights  for  cattle.  This  movement  has  been 
relatively  greater  than  in  the  case  of  any  other  class  of  livestock,  being 
reflected  in  the  weight  of  cattle  slaughtered  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  as 
will  be  seen  from  table  13. 

Calf  Crop. — Wentworth  and  Clemen17  state  there  has  been  a  de- 
cided improvement  in  the  number  of  births  per  thousand  cattle  in 
the  United  States  since  1907  (table  12).  The  question  of  the  number 
of  births  per  thousand  cattle  is  important  in  many  sections  of  Cali- 
fornia and  little  information  is  available  on  this  point  in  this  state.18 


13  Equation  of  the  line  of  trend  of  the  per-capita  beef  cattle  population  in 
the  United  States  1900-1927  is  y  —  0.6534  —  0.0046a;,  origin  July  1,  1914. 

i*  Voorhies,  Edwin  C.  Economic  aspects  of  the  dairy  industry.  California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  437:  14-15.     1927. 

15  Equation  of  the  line  of  trend  of  the  per-capita  slaughter  of  cattle  in  the 
United  States,  1900-1927,  is 

y  =  0.1341  —  0.0005a;,  origin  July  1,  1914. 

is  Equation  of  the  line  of  trend  of  the  per-capita  slaughter  of  calves  in  the 
United  States,  1900-1927,  is 

y  =  0.06548  +  0.0006a;,  origin  July  1,  1914. 

i"  Wentworth,  Edward  N.,  and  Rudolf  A.  Clemen.  Increasing  productivity 
of  American  livestock  herds.  Armour's  Livestock  Bureau.  Monthly  Letter  to 
Animal  Husbandman  8(2):  1-4.     1927. 

is  Hart,  G.  H.,  and  H.  R.  Guilbert.  Factors  influencing  percentage  calf  crop 
in  range  herds.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  458:1-42.     figs.  1-3.     1928. 


26 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


In  studies  conducted  by  governmental  and  state  agencies  wide 
variations  in  the  cost  of  producing  beef  have  been  traced  to  a  number 
of  factors,  the  most  important  of  which  has  been  the  per  cent  of  calf 
crop.19  The  claim  has  been  made  by  those  familiar  with  the  economic 
phases  of  beef  cattle  management  that  the  percentage  calf  crop  should 
reach  80.  In  the  studies  made  thus  far  indications  are  that  the 
average  calf  crop  in  the  western  states  studied  runs  below  70  per  cent. 

TABLE  12 

Estimated  Number  of  Births  per  Thousand  Cattle,  United  States, 

1907-1926 


Year 

Number 

Year 

Number 

Year 

Number 

Year 

Number 

1907 

253 

1912 

273 

1917 

364 

1922 

287 

1908 

268 

1913 

295 

1918 

361 

1923 

328 

1909 

267 

1914 

307 

1919 

334 

1924 

350 

1910 

303 

1915 

325 

1920 

304 

1925 

324 

1911 

275 

1916 

329 

1921 

302 

1926 

374 

Source  of  data:  Wentworth,  Edward  N.,  and  Rudolf  A.Clemen.  Increasing  productivity  of  Amer- 
ican livestock  herds.  Armour's  Livestock  Bureau.  Monthly  Letter  to  Animal  Husbandmen  8  (2) :  1-4. 
1927. 


Some  few  returns  on  the  percentage  calf  crop  indicate  that  wide  vari- 
ations exist  here  as  elsewhere.  While  certain  factors  of  management 
such  as  an  insufficient  number  of  bulls,  cows  in  poor  conditions,  etc., 
have  an  important  influence  on  the  calf  crop,  there  appear  to  be  other 
equally  important  factors  which  have  not  been  studied  thoroughly. 
It  has  been  found20  that  certain  large  areas  in  Nevada  report  larger 
calf  crops  than  other  parts  of  the  state.     Investigations21  made  in 


is  Brennen,  C.  A.,  and  Grant  H.  Smith,  Jr.  Preliminary  report  on  a  study 
of  cattle  production  costs  in  Nevada.  Nevada  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  Ill:  1-14. 
1928. 

20  Hilts,  Walter  H.  A  study  of  the  1924  calf  crop  in  Nevada.  Nevada  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Cir.  57:  1-10.     1925. 

2i  Klemmedson,  G.  S.  An  economic  study  of  the  costs  and  methods  of  range 
cattle  production  on  forty-one  ranches  in  Colorado  in  1922.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Bud.  Agr.  Ecoh.,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Animallndustry,  and  Colorado  Agr.  Exp. 
Sta.  cooperating.  Preliminary  mimeographed  report.  Washington,  D.  C.  April 
1,  1924. 

Parr,  V.  V.,  and  G.  S.  Klemmedson.  An  economic  study  of  the  costs  and 
methods  of  range-cattle  production  in  the  northeastern  range  area  of  Texas,  1920, 
1921,  1922.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  and  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Animal 
Industry.     Preliminary  mimeographed  report.     Washington,  D.  C.     April  1,  1924. 

Parr,  V.  V.,  and  G.  S.  Klemmedson.  An  economic  study  of  the  costs  and 
methods  of  range  cattle  production  in  north  central  Texas.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur. 
Agr.  Econ.  and  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Animal  Industry.  Preliminary  mimeo- 
graphed report,  Washington,  D.  C.     May  1,  1925. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


27 


other  parts  of  the  west  have  also  pointed  to  considerable  variation 
within  the  area  studied.  The  type  of  forage  and  to  an  appreciable 
extent  the  degree  of  over-grazing  as  well  as  other  managerial  activites 
are  chiefly  responsible  for  the  regional  variation  in  calf  production. 

The  percentage  calf  crop  is  so  vital  to  the  economic  success  or 
failure  of  the  beef  industry  in  this  state  that  it  should  be  studied 
carefully,  although  such  work  would  have  to  be  pursued  over  a  long 
period  of  time  to  be  of  value.  California  cattlemen  would  benefit 
from  whatever  cooperation  they  might  choose  to  give  the  College  of 
Agriculture  of  the  University  of  California  in  carrying  on  such 
investigations. 

TABLE  13 

Average  Weight  of  all  Cattle  Slaughtered  on  the  Pacific  Coast 
(Calves  Excluded) 


Year 

Weight 
in  pounds 

Year 

Weight 
in  pounds 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1899 

1,054 

1920 

1,003 

1904 

1,037 

1921 

1,057 

1909 

1,043 

1922 

986 

1914 

1,024 

1923 

996 

1919 

979 

1924 

957 

1921 

1,013 

1925 

976 

1923 

1,024 

1926 

985 

Sources  of  data:  The  data  for  1899,  1904,  1909,  1914,  1919,  1921,  1923  (columns  1  and  2)  are  from  the 
census  bureau,  while  the  remaining  data  (columns  3  and  4)  are  from:  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Review  o  Jlivestock 
market  for  week  ending  Dec.  31,  1926  (mimeographed).    Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  San  Francisco  office. 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Birth  Rate,  United  States. — Cattle  births 
are  apparently  more  uniform  throughout  the  year  than  either  those 
of  sheep  or  swine.  Roberts22  in  a  recent  study  of  the  seasonal  distri- 
bution of  cattle  births  reports  that  over  70  per  cent  of  the  calves  are 
born  during  the  first  six  months  of  the  year,  April  claiming  the  largest 
number.  An  above-normal  number  of  calves  are  born  in  March,  April 
and  May;  September  and  October  also  are  above  normal  although 
to  a  lesser  degree.  On  many  ranches  the  importance  of  procuring 
animals  of  uniform  age  and  quality  should  be  stressed.  Often  there 
is  a  wide  variation  in  the  age  of  calves  on  a  single  ranch. 


22  Roberts,  John.     Food  animals  and  meat  consumption. 
Cir.  241:  7.     1924. 


U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 


28 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Location  of  Purebred  Beef  Cattle  Breeders,  California,  1927 


O  Aberdeen   A  nous 
x  Sftorf/jorn 

*  ffed  Po/Zed 

•  Hereford 


Fig.  8. — The  larger  number  of  breeders  of  purebred  beef  cattle  are  located 
in  the  northern  third  of  the  state.  While  there  are  a  considerable  number  in 
other  sections,  the  feeding  rather  than  the  breeding  of  cattle  becomes  more  im- 
portant in  moving  southward. 

(Data  secured  from  Division  of  Animal  Husbandry,  University  Farm,  Davis,  Calif.) 


BuL.  461 J      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


29 


PUREBRED    BEEF    CATTLE 

X umber  of  Purebreds. — An  enumeration  of  purebred  cattle  in 
1920  indicated  that  approximately  3  per  cent  of  all  the  beef  cattle 
were  purebred,  almost  the  same  proportion  as  for  dairy  cattle.  In 
numbers,  Shorthorns  and  Herefords  were  the  leading  beef  breeds, 
representing  more  than  four-fifths  of  all  the  pure-bred  beef  cattle 
reported — Shorthorns,  45.0  per  cent ;  Herefords  38.1  per  cent ;  Aber- 
deen Angus  10.2  per  cent. 

TABLE  14 

Registrations  of  Purebred  Hereford,  Aberdeen  Angus,  and  Shorthorn 
Cattle  in  California 


Year 

Hereford 

Aberdeen 
Angus 

Short- 
horn 

1911 

478 

493 

531 

755 

911 

1,186 

1,405 

1,850 

1,937 

2,050 

2,000 

2,168 

2,080 

1,792 

1,588 

1,777 

17 

1912 

1913 

18 
7 
17 
37 
37 
39 
3 
73 
54 
50 
65 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 
1923 
1924 

1,129 

895 
841 

1925 
1926 

116 

917 
937 

Source  of  data:  Hereford,  R.  J.  Kinzer,  Secretary,  American  Hereford  Cattle  Breeders  Association. 
Aberdeen  Angus,  W.  H.  Tomhave,  Secretary,  American  Aberdeen  Angus  Breeders  Association.  Short- 
horn, P.  K.  Groves,  Secretary,  American  Shorthorn  Breeders  Association. 


California  contained  approximately  1.24  per  cent  of  the  purebred 
beef  animals  in  the  country — 1.28  per  cent  of  the  Shorthorns,  1.29 
per  cent  of  the  Herefords,  and  1.09  per  cent  of  Aberdeen  Angus  cattle. 
A  relatively  larger  number  of  both  Shorthorns  and  Herefords  in 
proportion  to  the  total  purebreds  were  enumerated  in  California  than 
in  the  nation. 

Accurate  data  on  purebred  animals  recorded  from  California  over 
a  long  period  of  years  are  not  available.  Data  from  both  the  Ameri- 
can Aberdeen  Angus  Association  and  the  American  Hereford  Cattle 
Breeders  Association  give  evidence  of  a  greatly  increased  number  of 
registrations  during  the  post-war  period.    It  is  of  interest  to  note  that 


30 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


registrations  of  Heref  ords  continued  to  increase  even  after  the  depres- 
sion had  set  in.  Shorthorn  data  are  available  since  1922  only.  In 
the  United  States  the  trend  in  the  registration  of  purebreds  was 
downward  from  1913  to  1926   (inclusive). 

Location  of  Purebred  Breeders  in  California. — The  Animal  Hus- 
bandry Division  of  the  University  of  California  has  compiled  a  list 
of  the  breeders  of  purebred  beef  animals.  The  largest  number  is 
found  in  the  northern  third  of  the  state,  with  a  considerable  concen- 
tration in  Sacramento,  Yolo,  and  Solano  counties,  the  University  Farm 
at  Davis  being  the  hub  (fig.  8).  The  coast  counties  north  of  Mendo- 
cino and  Lake  counties,  the  Sacramento  Valley  north  of  Glenn  and 
Butte,  and  the  Sierra  section  north  of  El  Dorado  County,  are  rela- 
tively most  important  for  breeding.  Few  feeders  are  shipped  into 
this  section,  the  number  increasing  toward  the  south  (see  p.  37). 

Breeders  of  purebred  Shorthorns  are  most  numerous,  followed  by 
those  of  Herefords  and  Aberdeen  Angus.  This  grouping  corresponds 
to  the  numbers  of  purebred  animals  recorded  by  the  1920  census  in 
both  the  United  States  and  California. 


TABLE  15 

Number  of  Breeders  of  Purebred  Beef  Cattle  in  California, 
by  Sections,  1927 


Section 

Aberdeen 
Angus 

Here- 
ford 

Red 

Polled 

Short- 
horn 

1 
2 
3 
2 
3 
1 

5 
21 
15 
13 
6 
7 

1 

0 

7 
1 
2 

1 

23 

20 

Sacramento  Valley 

San  Joaquin  Valley 

Southern  California 

59 
21 
20 
31 

12 

67 

12 

174 

Source  of  data:  Division  of  Animal  Husbandry,  College  of  Agriculture,  University  of  California. 


THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  BEEF  INDUSTRY 

United  States. — According  to  the  agricultural  census  of  1925  beef 
cattle  were  reported  on  approximately  one-third  (32.36  per  cent)  of 
the  farms  of  the  United  States.  It  would  be  more  accurate  to  give 
the  data  for  farms  with  cattle  but  such  information  is  not  available. 
In  1924  cows  were  milked  on  78.3  per  cent  of  the  farms.  Cattle  raising 
thus  occupies  an  important  place  in  the  agriculture  of  this  country. 


Bul.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


31 


In  the  middle  western  and  mountain  states,  the  number  of  cattle 
is  high  in  comparison  with  the  human  population.  On  the  basis  of 
"other  cattle"  figures  are  high  compared  with  population  in  Iowa, 
North  Dakota,  South  Dakota,  Nebraska,  Kansas,  Texas,  and  the 
mountain  states.  California  has  a  comparatively  small  number  of 
either  "total  cattle"  or  "other  cattle"  per  human  inhabitant. 

TABLE  16 

Estimated  Gross  Value  of  Farm  Products,  United  States,  1919-1926 

(Millions  of  dollars,  i.e.,  000,000  omitted.) 


Crops 

Animal 
products 

4 

Total  crops 

not  fed  and 

animal 

products 

5 

Cattle 
raised 

6 

Per  cent  cattle  raised  is 

Year 

Gross 
2 

Not  fed 
to  live- 
stock 
3 

Of  total 
animal 
products 

7 

Of  total 
products 

8 

1919 

16,561 

9,402 

8,275 

17,677 

1,578 

19.07 

8.93 

1920 

11,578 

7,102 

7,709 

14,811 

1,194 

15.49 

8  06 

1921 

7,759 

4,679 

5,589 

10,268 

786 

14.06 

7.65 

1922 

9,430 

5,560 

5,651 

11,211 

975 

17.25 

8.70 

1923 

10,401 

6,111 

6,271 

12,382 

924 

14.73 

7.46 

1924 

10,770 

6,317 

5,902 

12,219 

892 

15.11 

7.30 

1925 

10,170 

6,387 

6,647 

13,034 

919 

13.83 

7.05 

1926 

9,266 

5,685 

7,300 

12,985 

1,081 

14.81 

8  32 

1927 

Sources  of  data: 

Cols.  2,  3,  4,  5,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Estimated  gross  value  of  farm  production.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops 
and  Markets  4:  251,  1927.  Col.  6,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Farm  production,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook,  1923: 
1143-1144.  1924.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Estimated  gross  value  of  farm  production.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops 
and  Markets,  1:  84.   1924;  ibid,  3:  226,  1926;  ibid,  4:  251,  1927. 

Cols.  7  and  8,  computations  by  authors;  col.  7  =  col.  6  divided  by  col.  4;  col.  8  =  col.  6  divided  by  col.  5. 


Beef  cattle  are  kept  on  a  larger  percentage  of  farms  in  the  west 
north  central  and  mountain  states  than  in  any  of  the  other  sections 
of  the  country,  while  the  number  of  farms  in  the  three  Pacific  Coast 
states  reporting  beef  cattle  is  relatively  small.  In  both  the  mountain 
and  Pacific  Coast  states  the  number  of  beef  cows  and  steers  per  farm 
is  large  compared  with  the  other  sections  of  the  country.  Whether 
there  has  been  a  definite  tendency  toward  larger  or  smaller  units  in 
the  beef  industry  cannot  be  stated  accurately.  A  tendency  toward 
larger  units  in  the  dairy  industry  in  California  has  recently  been 
noted.23 

On  the  basis  of  aggregate  value,  "cattle  raised"  ranked  eighth 
among  farm  products  of  the  United  States  in  1926,  being  exceeded 
by  the  value  of  dairy  products,  corn,  cotton,  swine  raised,  hay  and 

23  Voorhies,  Edwin  C.  Economic  aspects  of  the  dairy  industry.  California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  437:  1-192.     1927. 


32  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

forage,  vegetables  (including  potatoes),  and  poultry  products.  The 
crops  not  fed  to  livestock  had  an  estimated  farm  value  of  $5,685,- 
000,000  while  animal  products  aggregated  $7,300,000,000  (table  16). 
Three  major  divisions  comprised  the  animal-products  group:  (1) 
dairy  products,  accounting  for  40.3  per  cent  of  the  animal  products' 
total;  (2)  animals  raised,  42.0  per  cent;  (3)  poultry  products,  16.2 
per  cent.  Wool,  together  with  minor  products,  made  up  the  remain- 
ing 1.5  per  cent.  Of  the  animals  raised  ($2,672,000,000)  swine  made 
up  53.8  per  cent  of  the  total,  cattle  34.4,  sheep  6.6,  horses  and  mules 
5.0,  and  miscellaneous  0.2  per  cent.  It  should  be  noted  that  under 
"cattle  raised"  would  be  included  those  produced  for  dairy  purposes, 
a  large  number  of  which  ultimately  reach  the  block. 

There  has  not  been  a  definite  trend  in  the  place  which  cattle  rais- 
ing has  occupied  in  the  agriculture  of  the  United  States  or  in  its 
position  among  the  animal  products.  However,  it  would  appear  from 
table  16  that  the  depression  in  1920  and  1921  was  felt  more  severely 
in  cattle  raising  than  in  agriculture  in  general  or  in  the  other  animal 
industries.  If  in  the  data  in  table  16  dairy  cattle  could  be  separated 
from  beef  cattle,  the  latter  would  occupy  a  place  of  lesser  importance. 

California. — Annual  estimates  of  the  value  of  production  of  cattle, 
hogs,  and  sheep  are  now  being  made  by  the  Division  of  Crope  and 
Livestock  Estimates.  These  estimates24  for  California,  representing 
the  gross  farm  value  of  livestock  sold  off  farms  and  ranges  during 
1927,  are  as  follows: 

Cattle  and   calves $26,419,000 

Sheep,  lambs,  and  wool $21,395,000 

Hogs  $15,264,000 

The  value  of  cattle  and  calves  produced  was  exceeded  by  the  value 
of  butterfat  produced  and  by  the  value  of  poultry  products.  Com- 
pared with  specific  crops  produced,  the  former  value  was  exceeded 
only  by  hay,  grapes,  and  oranges. 

The  1925  agricultural  census  reports  beef  cattle  on  10.84  per  cent 
of  the  farms  of  the  state  and  cows  milked  on  48.11  per  cent.  While 
cattle  raising  is  of  direct  importance  to  perhaps  a  smaller  percentage 
of  farmers  in  California  than  in  most  other  sections,  farming  is  more 
highly  specialized  in  this  state.  In  the  number  of  "beef  cattle  per 
farm  keeping  beef  cows"  in  1925,  California  ranked  fourth  among 
the  states,  while  in  the  number  of  "steers  per  farm  keeping  beef 
cows"  third  place  was  taken. 

24  California  Cooperative  Crop  Keporting-  Service.  Estimated  value  of  the 
production  of  California  livestock— 1927.     California  Crop  Keport  1927:  55.    1928. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF   CATTLE   INDUSTRY  33 

In  comparison  with  other  types  of  agriculture,  beef  raising  is  more 
important  in  the  mountain  group  of  counties  than  in  any  other  loca- 
tion. In  the  percentage  of  farms  keeping  beef  cattle  this  section  was 
followed  in  order  of  importance  by  the  Sacramento  Valley,  north 
coast,  south  coast,  San  Joaquin,  and  southern  California  sections 
(table  4,  p.  15).  It  would  appear  that  beef  raising  is  more  important 
in  those  sections  of  the  state  possessing  a  relatively  sparse  human 
population.  This  is  not  the  case  with  the  dairy-cattle  population, 
which  occupies  an  important  place  in  intensively  cultivated  sections 
of  the  state  possessing  a  relatively  large  human  population. 


FEEDING    CONDITIONS    IN    CALIFORNIA  25 

The  Range  Types  of  California. — The  cattle  ranges  of  California 
are  widely  diversified  with  respect  to  types  of  forage  and  grazing 
capacity,  and  in  their  use  as  breeding  grounds  and  finishing  areas,  on 
account  of  differences  in  elevation,  climate,  and  soil.  Broadly  con- 
sidered, the  range  types  occur  in  horizontal  life  zones  or  belts  of 
vegetation.  One  or  two  of  these  zones  are  chiefly  suitable  for  forag- 
ing in  winter;  others  can  best  be  used  only  for  a  few  weeks  in  the 
summer ;  and  a  small  part  of  the  lower  zones  can  be  used  throughout 
the  year  if  necessary. 

Four  life  zones  are  recognized,  namely,  Lower  Sonoran,  Upper 
Sonoran,  Transition,  and  Boreal.  The  Lower  Sonoran,  or  least 
elevated  life  zone,  is  the  largest  in  extent,  comprising  about  36.5  per 
cent  of  the  area  of  the  state,  and  is  characterized  by  such  limited 
annual  rainfall  as  to  be  classed  as  desert  or  semi-desert.  In  contrast, 
the  highest,  or  Boreal  Zone,  comprises  the  smallest  acreage,  or  about 
4.5  per  cent  of  the  total  area.  It  receives  a  large  amount  of  rainfall, 
but  because  of  low  temperature  and  short  growing  season  the  plants 
have  somewhat  the  appearance  of  desert  vegetation.  The  Upper 
Sonoran  Zone  includes  approximately  33.0  per  cent  of  the  land  area, 
and  the  Transition  Zone  about  26.0  per  cent  (fig.  9). 

The  Lower  Sonoran  Zone  is  composed  of  two  somewhat  distinct 
areas,  known  as  the  Colorado  and  Mohave  Deserts,  and  the  Great 
Valley  of  California.  This  zone  occurs  from  sea  level  to  5,000  feet 
in  elevation.  The  Colorado  and  Mohave  deserts  are  characterized  by 
low  humidity,  annual  rainfall  not  in  excess  of  5  inches,  high  summer 

25  At  a  conference  of  those  interested  in  the  beef  industry,  it  was  requested 
that  a  discussion  of  range  types  be  included  in  this  bulletin.  In  accordance  with 
this  request,  Arthur  W.  Sampson,  Associate  Professor  of  Forestry  and  Plant 
Ecologist  in  the  Experiment  Station,  University  of  California,  has  prepared  the 
section  included  in  pages  33  to  40. 


34  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

temperature,  low  winter  temperature,  and  drying  winds.  The  vege- 
tation is  rather  low  of  stature,  widely  spaced,  and  its  forage  species 
are  succulent  and  highly  palatable  only  during  the  short,  active  grow- 
ing season  (fig.  10).  There  is  a  goodly  proportion  of  the  green-leaved 
evergreens  and  of  fleshy-stemmed  plants,  of  practically  no  food  value 
for  stock.  A  few  annual  grasses  and  a  lesser  number  of  perennial 
grass  species  occur  in  somewhat  protected  places.  Occasionally  cheno- 
pods  and  salt  bushes  are  found  in  sufficient  abundance  to  afford 
valuable  cattle  browse  feed.  Arborescent  species  are  confined  to 
stream  beds  and  low-lying  moist  areas,  where  they  serve  the  all- 
important  purpose  of  shelter  for  live-stock  during  inclement  weather. 
The  grazing  capacity  is  the  lowest  of  any  zone,  requiring  from  60 
to  100  acres  or  even  more  to  support  a  cow  for  a  year.  There  is  much 
waste  range. 

The  valley  Sonoran,  of  the  same  range  in  elevation  as  the  desert, 
includes  most  of  the  Great  Valley  of  California,  and  is  largely  grass- 
land. The  rainfall  is  heavier  than  in  the  desert  and  the  vegetation 
is  more  succulent  and  much  better  suited  for  cattle  production.  The 
tree  growth  is  confined  to  moist  areas  and  is  composed  chiefly  of 
poplar  and  willow,  the  latter  of  which  furnishes  some  browse  feed. 
Large  alkali  flats  are  encountered  here  and  there,  upon  which  the 
well-known  salt  grass,  salt  bushes,  and  other  such  plants  replace  the 
grasses  that  do  not  endure  salinity.  Upon  these  areas  cattle  can  exist 
and  make  a  fair  growth  if  fed  some  protein  concentrate  like  cotton- 
seed cake. 

The  Upper  Sonoran  Zone  comprises  the  lower  foothill  belt  of 
grassland  and  a  slightly  elevated  chaparral  belt  of  mixed  species, 
between  elevations  of  1000  and  5000  feet.  The  grasses  are  chiefly 
annuals,  notably  wild  oats,  fescues,  and  bromes,  intermixed  with 
various  highly  palatable  species  of  true  clovers,  alfilaria,  and  burr 
clover.  Of  the  grasslike  plants,  different  kinds  of  sedges  and  rushes 
occur  in  varying  abundance.  Among  the  more  common  brush  or 
chaparral  plants  are  found  several  species  of  buckbrush,  manzanita, 
mahogany,  and  chamise.  These  often  form  so  dense  a  stand  as  to 
prevent  cattle  from  working  their  way  into  the  areas  to  gather  what 
little  undergrowth  of  grasses  there  may  be.  The  chaparral  cover  is 
generally  regarded  as  the  fire  type  for  the  reason  that  on  areas 
frequently  burned  the  chaparral  vegetation  seems  to  reappear  in- 
definitely. This  zone  is  valuable  chiefly  for  winter  and  spring  grazing. 
The  grassland  and  open  woodland  areas  are  well  suited  for  the  grazing 
of  cattle,  whereas  the  browse  types  are  utilized  best  by  sheep  and 
goats. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  35 


Range  Types  of  California  According  to  Life  Zones 


Legend : 
■■■    BOREAL 
mm    TRANSITION 
WMA    UPPER  50N0RAN 
]    LOWER  SONORAN 


(After  Dr.  Jos.  Grinnell.) 

Fig.  9. — The  Boreal  Zone  comprises  about  4.5  per  cent  of  the  total  area,  the 
Transition  Zone  26.0  per  cent,  the  Upper  Sonoran  Zone  33.0  per  cent,  and  the 
Lower  Sonoran  Zone  about  36.5  per  cent  of  the  state. 


36  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  Transition  Zone  lies  between  elevations  of  approximately  2000 
and  7000  feet  and  includes  the  forest  belt  of  which  western  yellow 
pine,  incense  cedar,  Douglas  fir,  white  fir,  sugar  pine,  and  redwood 
are  typical.  This  zone  is  of  two  rather  distinct  vegetative  types — 
(1)  the  Arid  Transition  characterized  by  western  yelloAV  pine  and 
associated  species,  and  (2)  the  Humid  Transition  characterized  by 
redwood.  In  the  Arid  Transition  the  average  annual  rainfall  is  about 
30  inches.  Because  of  the  open  stand  of  the  timber,  this  type  supports 
a  somewhat  luxuriant  understory  of  grasses,  herbs,  and  shrubs,  of 
which  annual  and  perennial  fescue  grasses,  needle  grasses,  brome 
grasses,  clovers,  and  other  legumes  are  common.  Of  the  many 
shrubs,  huckleberry,  serviceberry,  mountain  mahogany,  deerbrush, 
and  other  buckbrushes  are  conspicuous.  The  growing  season,  approxi- 
mately from  May  to  November,  permits  grazing  from  late  spring  until 
the  coming  of  the  autumn  rains.  The  Humid  Transition,  which  com- 
prises the  coastal  redwood  area,  has  a  deep,  rich  soil.  Because  of  the 
luxuriance  of  the  forest  growth,  however,  this  type  does  not  support 
as  many  livestock  as  the  more  arid  pine  cover,  except  for  the  glades 
and  open  parks,  which  are  of  very  high  grazing  capacity. 

The  transition  zone  as  a  whole  contributes  abundantly  to  the 
forage  crop ;  and  although  the  vegetation  becomes  somewhat  dry  late 
in  the  summer  it  remains  fairly  palatable  and  cattle  hold  their  flesh 
reasonably  well.  For  prime  beef,  however,  the  animals  must  be 
marketed  before  the  seed  crop  reaches  maturity.  The  most  successful 
practice  for  beef  production  is  to  graze  the  forage  in  this  zone  as  long 
as  it  is  succulent,  and  then  remove  the  animals  to  a  more  elevated 
zone. 

The  Boreal  Zone  occurs  from  about  7,000  feet  above  sea  level  to 
the  highest  mountain  crests.  The  annual  rainfall  is  about  45  inches. 
The  growing  season  and  the  best  season  for  grazing  is  approximately 
from  June  to  October.  This  zone  may  be  recognized  by  such  com- 
mercially valuable  trees  as  red  fir,  western  white  pine,  lodgepole  pine, 
mountain  hemlock,  and  white  bark  pine ;  by  such  shrubs  as  mountain 
elder,  mountain  mahogany,  thimbleberry,  wild  cherry,  snowberry,  and 
mountain  elder;  and  by  forage  grasses  like  the  bromes,  fescue  grasses, 
blue  grasses,  pine  grasses,  melic  grasses,  and  alpine  timothy.  Because 
of  the  heavy  timber  growth  at  intermediate  elevations,  the  grazing 
capacity  is  variable  and  not  especially  high.  The  range  is  well  watered 
however,  so  that  the  forage  may  be  fully  utilized. 

The  more  elevated  part  of  this  zone  comprises  the  cool,  late 
summer  ranges  from  which  cattle  may  be  marketed  as  beef  of  high 
quality  in  September  and  October.     This  area  often  supports  many 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


37 


plants  poisonous  to  cattle,  of  which  tall  larkspur  causes  the  heaviest 
losses.  These  losses  can  usually  be  controlled,  either  by  grubbing  out 
dense  patches  of  larkspur  or  fencing  them  against  the  animals. 

The  rather  limited  area  which  lies  above  10,000  feet  in  elevation 
is  largely  treeless — above  timber  line.  The  temperature  is  low  and 
frosts  may  occur  almost  nightly  during  the  growing  period.  The 
vegetation  as  a  whole  is  of  diminutive  stature.  Typical  plants  are 
the  trisetum  grasses,  fescue  grasses,  alpine  timothy,  buttercup,  various 
sedges,  and  dwarf  shrubs.  This  area  is  of  little  value  for  livestock 
grazing.    The  period  of  greatest  usefulness  is  in  August. 


Profile  Showing  the  Life  Zones  and  Characteristic  Plants  Found  at 
Various  Altitudes  on  the  Eange  Types  in  California 


I 
GRA55E.3    and  OTHER   HERBS 

ANNUALS  <md  PERENNIAL5 

M05TLY  ANNUAL  GRASSES 

ANNUAL  and  PERENNIALS 

PERENNIALS 

Wild  Oats 

Fescue    grass 

Alpine  timothy 

Wild  rice  grass 

Annual  fescue 

Brome    gross 

Fescue  grass 

14,000 

_     Annual  fescue 

Needle  grass 

Pine   gras3 

Melic   grass            r 

Salt  grass 

Brome   grass 

Needle  grass 

Blue   grass            J 

Plantains 

Sedge 

Clover 

Needle  giu53      J 

13,000 

~ 

Bur  clover 

Mariposa  lily 

Sedge              j 

Alfilana 

Geranium 

Rushes            F 

ie>ooo 

- 

Soap  plant 

Lupine 

Various        f 

succulent/  herbs 

11000 

SHRUBS 

Sumac 

10000 

Much  Chaparral 

.Service  berru 

Creosote    bush 

Buck  brush 

Thimble   berry 

9000 

-     Salt  bush 

Manzanita 

Mt.Mohoq.amf 

f    Mt  Elder 

Sage  brush 

Chamise 

Deer  brush 

J  Snow  berry 

8000 

-    Smoke  bush 

Buck  thorn 

Wild  plum 

f  Goose  berry 

Sumac 

Manzanita 

7000 

Coyote  bush 

Sage  brush          ** 

Hazel                V""- 

6000 

TREE5           y^ 

Westerr^yellow  piNe 

Red  fir 

5000 

Incense  cedar 

Mt.  hemlock 

None 

Oaks 

^^Sugar  pine 

Lodge  pole  pine 

4000 

Digger  pine            , 

r^White  fir 

White  bark  pine 
Western  white  pine 

Redwood 

3000 

^-^-^ROWING 

Big  tree 
5EASON 

£000 

Wintered  early  spr  ino,    * 

f    October-June            April  15-November 
&RAZ1N& 

June -October 

10OO 

-Winten^""' 

Winterand  Spring   1 

Some  near  long             May  -November 

ySmuch  waste  lancl 

June -October 

LOWER  SONORAN      UPPER  SONORAN 


TRANSITION 
(Courtesy   of   Prof. 


BOREAL 
W.    Sampson.) 


the 


Fig.  10. — This  figure,  together  with  figure  9,  shows  the  relationship  between 
types  of  vegetation,  altitude,  and  location  of  the  range  types  in  California. 


Breeding  and  Finishing  Grounds. — The  difference  in  the  condi- 
tions favoring  growth  tends  to  segregate  the  cattle  industry  into, 
somewhat  specialized  fields  in  different  localities,  such  as  (1)  merely 
importing,  fattening,  and  finishing  fairly  mature  cattle;  (2)  import- 
ing young  cattle,  growing  them  out,  and  finishing  them  for  beef ;  and 
(3)  breeding,  growing,  and  finishing  cattle  and  also  importing  many 
cattle  from  neighboring  states. 


38 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Sales   of  Cottonseed  Meal,   July   1,   1926-June  30,   1927,  and  Location  of 

Cotton  Oil  Mills 


&*  *"■ 


X!  ^n  *'" 

^V*     _  ft,  •     .    .. 


1  dot  =  SO  tons 

*  Loco  Hon  ofCoiton-o//  Mi  if 


Fig.  11. — Since  the  advent  of  the  cotton  industry  in  California  and  Arizona, 
large  amounts  of  cottonseed  meal  have  been  used  for  the  finishing  of  cattle.  Most 
'of  the  meal  is  sold  in  the  lower  two-thirds  of  the  state  and  in  Nevada.  The 
location  of  the  cotton  oil  mills  in  California  is  shown,  since  a  large  tonnage  of 
cake  is  sold  locally  in  the  vicinity  of  each  of  these  mills. 

(Data  supplied  to  authors  by  private  concerns  selling  approximately  75  per  cent  of  the 
meal  disposed  of  within  the  state.) 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY  39 

The  whole  of  Imperial  County  and  parts  of  Riverside  and  San 
Diego  counties  are  highly  specialized  in  that  all  of  the  pasture  forage 
as  well  as  that  produced  under  irrigation  is  used  for  finishing  the 
animals,  practically  all  of  which  are  imported  from  neighboring  states. 
A  new  crop  of  animals  is  purchased,  finished,  and  sold  each  year  and 
the  feeding  is  done  during  the  more  favorable  winter  and  spring 
periods. 

The  counties  on  the  coast  from  San  Diego  to  Del  Norte,  east  includ- 
ing Modoc  County,  and  southward  as  far  as  Mono  County,  are  used 
as  breeding  and  finishing  grounds  with  some  importation  of  cattle, 
especially  in  years  of  abundant  forage  production.  In  the  more 
northerly  counties  and  those  on  the  eastern  border  of  the  state,  the 
National  Forests  contribute  abundantly  to  the  summer  foraging 
requirements. 

The  valley  counties,  beginning  with  the  narrow  strip  in  Shasta 
County,  southward  to  Kern  and  Tulare  counties,  are  known  as  an 
importing,  growing  out,  and  finishing  region  for  beef.  The  intensive 
feeding  period  is  done  in  winter  and  spring.  Not  uncommonly  the 
best  beef  is  that  which  gets  the  use  of  the  succulent  spring  forage. 

Range  Improvement  by  Reseeding. — Because  of  long  intensive 
usage  of  the  pastures  many  areas  have  been  rather  seriously  depleted. 
To  increase  the  grazing  capacity  and  re-establish  the  choicest  forage 
plants,  and  to  maintain  the  productivity  year  after  year  requires 
definite,  persistent,  and  rational  management.  Although  compara- 
tively low  forage  production  is  found  in  those  life  zones  which  receive 
limited  rainfall,  overgrazing  and  use  of  the  forage  when  very  young 
and  poorly  rooted  are  responsible  for  much  of  the  low  grazing  capacity. 

The  Sonoran  life  zones,  or  foothill  and  valley  (winter)  ranges, 
which  are  well  adapted  for  the  growth  of  'Svinter  annuals" — plants 
like  alfilaria,  burr  clover,  and  wild  oats,  are  of  low  productivity  partly 
at  least  because  of  too  early  grazing.  Generally  these  areas  are  pas- 
tured more  or  less  heavily  in  the  autumn  shortly  after  growth  begins, 
a  practice  unfavorable  to  the  maintenance  of  a  high  grazing  capacity 
if  continued  year  after  year.  The  plan  of  deferring  or  of  discontinu- 
ing grazing  sufficiently  early  in  the  spring  to  permit  of  seed  develop- 
ment has  given  good  promise  of  effective  reseeding.  The  extent  of 
the  application  of  this  reseeding  plan  is  determined  largely  by  (1) 
the  possibilities  of  reserving  range  in  the  spring  for  the  animals  that 
are  to  be  moved  from  that  portion  of  the  pasture  which  is  in  need  of 
reseeding,  or  (2)  where  pasturage  is  limited,  by  producing  supple- 
mental roughage  for  the  animals  in  order  to  reserve  a  portion  of 


40  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

the  area  for  reseeding.  If  the  area  to  be  reserved  from  late  spring 
grazing  is  pastured  up  to  about  March  15,  there  is  practically  no  loss 
of  forage;  at  the  same  time  a  fairly  large  seed  crop  of  the  more 
desirable  plants  is  produced  by  June  when  the  forage  approaches 
maturity.  The  additional  feed  that  comes  from  the  seed  produced 
soon  increases  appreciably  the  grazing  capacity  of  the  lands,  thereby 
more  than  offsetting  any  disadvantage  in  providing  the  necessary 
spring  protection.  After  one  part  of  the  pasture  is  reseeded,  protec- 
tion in  the  following  spring  period  should  be  applied  to  another  part 
and  the  grazing  rotation  continued  indefinitely. 

The  deferred  grazing  plan  applies  also  to  the  high  mountain 
ranges ;  but  here  a  portion  of  the  summer  grazing  area,  say  one-fourth, 
is  protected  from  livestock  until  the  seed  crop  has  ripened.  After 
that  the  protected  area  should  be  grazed  moderately  to  get  the  use 
of  the  forage  and  to  trample  the  seed  crop  into  the  ground  to  insure 
maximum  germination  the  following  year. 

In  applying  deferred  and  rotation  grazing  some  fencing  must  be 
done  to  confine  the  animals.  Not  only  is  the  cost  involved  usually 
more  that  offset  in  three  or  four  years  by  more  and  better  forage,  but 
also  the  partition  fences  make  possible  segregation  of  the  animals 
according  to  age  classes  and  sexes,  which  in  itself  makes  for  bigger 
gains  and  surer  profits. 

Cattle-Feeding  Areas. — While  accurate  data  showing  expansion  in 
cattle-feeding  areas  of  the  state  are  lacking,  there  seems  to  be  but  little 
doubt  that  there  has  been  a  considerable  increase  in  the  feeding  of 
concentrates  during  the  past  few  years.  This  has  been  especially  the 
case  with  the  development  of  the  cotton  industry  in  the  southwest, 
making  available  considerable  amounts  of  cottonseed  meal  and  cake. 
Through  the  courtesies  tendered  by  one  of  the  larger  distributors  of 
cottonseed  cake  in  California  and  various  cotton  oil  mills  in  the  state, 
the  authors  have  been  able  to  trace  the  sales  of  cottonseed  cake  to 
cattlemen.  Such  sales  represent  over  75  per  cent  of  the  total  made 
in  the  state.  The  main  areas  for  such  feeding  are  (1)  San  Joaquin 
Valley,  (2)  Imperial  Valley,  (3)  areas  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  and 
Los  Angeles  regions  (fig.  11,  p.  38).  Shipments  of  cottonseed  cake 
have  been  made  on  a  considerable  scale  to  points  in  Nevada  which 
supply  the  California  markets  with  cattle. 

It  is  not  possible  to  procure  data  relative  to  the  amounts  of  alfalfa 
and  concentrates  other  than  cottonseed  cake  fed  to  cattle. 

Cattle  on  Feed  for  Market,  Western  States. — The  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture  reports  estimates  of  the  number  of  cattle 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF   CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


41 


on  feed  in  various  sections  of  the  country  for  different  times  of  the 
year.  On  January  1,  1928,  the  western  states  including  Texas  showed 
a  decrease  of  18.6  per  cent  in  the  number  of  cattle  on  feed  as  com- 
pared with  the  previous  year.  California  cattle  on  feed  on  January  1, 
1928  totaled  45,000  or  a  decrease  of  30.7  per  cent  from  65,000,  the 
number  on  feed  on  January  1,  1927.  Table  17  gives  the  estimated 
numbers  of  cattle  on  feed  in  the  western  states  on  January  1,  1927, 
and  1928. 

TABLE  17 

Cattle  on  Feed  for  Market  in  the  Western  States, 

January  1,  1927  and  1928 


State 

January  1,  1928 

January  1,  1927 

Montana 

38,000 
14,000 
140,000 
27,000 
20,000 
25,000 
7,000 
15,000 
45,000 
50,000 

43,000 
17,000 

Colorado 

Utah 

Nevada 

Idaho 

Washington 

Oregon 

150,000 
40,000 
28,000 
28,000 
8,000 
23,000 
65,000 

Texas 

50,000 

Total 

381,000 

452,000 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Regional  Livestock  Office,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Feed  Costs. — While  the  larger  number  of  animals  raised  for 
strictly  beef  purposes  in  California  are  fed  upon  natural  grasses, 
comparisons  between  the  prices  of  feeds  and  beef  may  prove  to  be 
of  interest  and  value  to  the  producer.  Furthermore,  the  purchasing 
power  of  beef  in  terms  of  feeds  is  of  perhaps  more  interest  than  the 
purchasing  power  of  beef  in  terms  of  all  commodities. 

Alfalfa-Beef  Price  Ratio. — Since  1914,  there  has  been  a  wide  vari- 
ation in  the  quantity  of  alfalfa  hay  required  to  purchase  one  hundred 
pounds  of  beef.  From  1914  until  1918,  there  was  a  marked  increase 
in  the  value  of  beef  cattle  as  compared  with  that  of  alfalfa  hay. 
From  the  latter  year  to  1927  a  definite  trend  in  the  relationship  of 
the  two  commodities  is  not  discernible. 

Comparisons  of  Beef-Cattle  and  Concentrate  Prices. — The  relation- 
ship between  beef  cattle  and  barley  prices  over  the  past  eighteen  years 
has  been  irregular.  No  definite  trend  is  discernible.  Prices  paid  for 
cottonseed  meal  are  not  available  over  a  sufficiently  long  and  continu- 
ous period  to  give  definite  information  on  the  trend  of  the  relationship 
between  the  price  of  this  feed  and  the  price  of  beef  cattle. 


42 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Grazing  Fees  on  the  National  Forests. — Varying  fees  are  charged 
for  grazing  in  the  national  forests  of  the  state.  Table  18  contains  a 
list  of  the  fees  charged  from  1917  to  1927  and  for  1931  for  year-long 
grazing.  For  some  years  a  study  has  been  in  progress  which  has  as  its 
ultimate  aim  a  more  equable  distribution  of  grazing  fees.  The  new 
fees  will  go  into  effect  gradually,  starting  in  1928  and  reaching  full 
operation  in  1931. 26 

TABLE  18 

Year-Long  Grazing  Fees  for  Cattle  on  the  California  National  Forests, 

1917,  1918,  1919-1927,  and  Monthly  Fees,  1931* 

(Cents  per  animal.) 


National  forest 

1917 
yearly 

1918 
yearly 

1919-1927 
yearly 

1931 
monthly 

Angeles 

California 

75 
75 
75 
90 
90 

75 
75 
75 
90 
90 

120 
120 
120 
140 
140 

19 
18 
19 

El  Dorado 

19 

Inyo,  Main  Forest 

18 
17 

70 

75 

100 

18 

15 

80 
75 
90 

80 
75 
90 

120 
120 
140 

19 

18 

19 

17 

85 

85 

140 
120f 
120 
140 

19 

19 

80 
90 

80 
90 

19 

19 

15 

75 
90 

75 

90 

120 
140 

18 

19 

15 

90 
90 
70 

90 
90 
70 

140 
140 
100 

19 

Tahoe 

19 

18 

15 

*  Prior  to  1928  the  monthly  rate  was  computed  by  dividing  the  annual  rate  by  10  for  periods  of  four 
months  or  longer;  for  shorter  periods  one-ninth  was  used.  In  1931  and  thereafter  the  method  to  be  used 
is  that  of  multiplying  the  monthly  rate  by  the  length  of  the  period  stock  are  to  be  grazed. 

t  1926-1927. 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Forest  Service,  Calif.  District. 


SLAUGHTER    OF    CATTLE 

Number  and  Trend  in  the  United  States. — The  number  of  animals 
annually  slaughtered  under  United  States  inspection,  together  with 
the  estimated  total  number  killed  (including  those  on  farms)  is  shown 
in  table  19.    The  cattle  and  calf  "curves  of  slaughter"  (fig.  7)  show 


26  Nelson,  J.  W.     New  grazing  fees  for  California  forests.     Western  Cattle 
Markets  and  News  1  (Special  Number) :  9,  29,  30.     Dec.  1927. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


43 


considerable  regularity.  The  low  point  in  cattle  marketing,  1912- 
1915,  was  coincident  with  an  increase  in  the  slaughter  of  sheep  and 
lambs.  The  war  conditions  promoted  cattle  feeding  for  meat  pro- 
duction and  this  situation  was  followed  by  a  decrease  at  the  end  of 
the  period.  From  1921  to  1926  inclusive  a  gradual  increase  in  the 
number  of  cattle  slaughtered  occurred  accompanying  a  decrease  in  the 

TABLE  19 

Number  of  Animals  Slaughtered  Annually  Under  Federal  Inspection  and 

Estimated  Total  Number  Slaughtered  (Including  Farm)   in 

United  States,  1907-1927 

(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Cattle 

Calves 

Sheep  and  lambs 

Swine 

Year 

Estimated 

Estimated 

Estimated 

Estimated 

Inspected 

total 

Inspected 

total 

Inspected 

total 

Inspected 

total 

1907 

7,633 

13,287 

2,024 

6,211 

10,252 

13,360 

32,885 

54,709 

1908 

7,279 

12,852 

1,958 

6,048 

10,305 

12,526 

38,643 

61,615 

1909 

7,714 

13,611 

2,189 

6,516 

11,343 

14,725 

31,395 

53,220 

1910 

7,808 

13,541 

2,238 

6,553 

11,408 

14,797 

26,014 

47,076 

1911 

7,619 

12,958 

2,184 

6,265 

14,020 

18,057 

34,133 

56,646 

1912 

7,253 

11,979 

2,278 

6,348 

14,979 

19,247 

33,053 

55,564 

1913 

6,978 

11,478 

1,902 

5,285 

14,406 

18,520 

34,199 

57,046 

1914 

6,757 

11,005 

1,697 

4,661 

14,229 

18,290 

32,532 

55,501 

1915 

7,153 

10,822 

1,819 

4,640 

12,212 

15,756 

38,381 

62,017 

1916 

8,310 

12,027 

2,367 

5,774 

11,941 

15,408 

43,084 

67,613 

1917 

10,350 

13,724 

3,143 

7,031 

9,345 

12,149 

33,910 

56,901 

1918 

11,829 

15,750 

3,456 

7,514 

10,320 

13,359 

41,214 

64,796 

1919 

10,091 

14,838 

3,969 

8,445 

12,691 

16,317 

41,812 

65,190 

1920 

8,609 

13,885 

4,058 

8,455 

10,982 

14,180 

38,019 

61,900 

1921 

7,608 

12,271 

3,808 

7,771 

13,005 

16,710 

38,982 

62,957 

1922 

8,678 

13,148 

4,182 

8,363 

10,929 

14,112 

43,114 

68,106 

1923 

9,163 

13,883 

4,500 

8,824 

11,529 

14,862 

53,334 

79,843 

1924 

9,593 

14,400 

4,935 

9,466 

11,991 

15,441 

52,873 

79,631 

1925 

9,853 

14,706 

5,353 

10,099 

12,001 

15,454 

43,043 

68,294 

1926 

10,180 

14,971 

5,153 

9,542 

12,961 

16,689 

40,636 

65,779 

1927 

9,520 

14,000 

4,876 

9,030 

12,883 

16,589 

43,633 

69,250 

Sources  of  data:  1907-1927,  Roberts,  John.    Meat  production,  consumption,  and  foreign  trade  in  the 
United  States,  calendar  years  1907-1927.   U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  An.  Ind.  mimeographed  circular  9  p.  1928. 


number  of  cattle  in  the  country.  Slaughter  of  mature  cattle  is 
now  on  the  decrease.  During  1927  a  decided  decrease  occurred  and 
the  first  seven  months  of  1928  give  indications  of  a  decrease  of  over 
10  per  cent,  compared  with  the  similar  period  of  1927.  This  clearly 
brings  out  the  fallacy  of  using  the  cattle  population  as  a  direct  index 
of  production.  Furthermore,  the  composition  of  the  cattle  population 
(steers,  cows,  bulls,  etc.)  would  have  a  marked  influence  on  the  actual 
output.    Wentworth  and  Clemen27  suggest  that  the  rise  in  the  number 

27  Wentworth,  Edward  N.,  and  Rudolf  A.  Clemen.  Livestock  population  and 
slaughter  ratios.  Armour 's  Livestock  Bur.  Monthly  Letter  to  Animal  Husband- 
men, 7(4):  3.     1926. 


44 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


of  cattle  slaughtered  from  1921  through  1926,  together  with  the  con- 
current decrease  in  the  beef-cattle  population,  came  about  through 
the  greater  production  of  young  cattle.  Comparisons  between  the 
census  data  of  1920  and  those  of  1925  indicate  that  fewer  animals 
other  than  breeding  stock  had  been  kept  in  herds  despite  the  increased 
slaughter.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  calves  slaughtered  has  been 
relatively  greater  than  that  for  any  other  class  of  livestock  (table  19). 
The  peak  in  the  numbers  of  calves  slaughtered  was  reached  in  1925. 
Indications  point  to  a  decrease  of  about  3  per  cent  in  1928  compared 
with  1927. 

Cattle  are  slaughtered  rather  uniformly  throughout  the  year, 
although  the  high  months  are  in  the  fall,  October  and  November 
usually  being  the  peak  months  (see  p.  87,  "Cold  Storage  Holdings 
of  Beef").  With  calves,  the  case  is  reversed,  the  largest  slaughter 
occurring  in  April  and  May. 

Sex  Classification  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  in  the  United  States. — 
Data  based  upon  reports  representing  nearly  75  per  cent  of  the  total 
cattle  slaughtered  under  Federal  inspection  show  that  less  than  50 
per  cent  are  steers.  Data  are  not  available  for  a  sufficiently  long 
period  to  indicate  whether  there  has  been  a  definite  trend  for  an 
increase  or  a  decrease  in  the  percentage.  The  data  indicate  that 
steers  are  slaughtered  in  relatively  larger  numbers  during  the  six 
months,  March  to  August,  inclusive,  while  cows  are  more  numerous 
during  the  remaining  months  of  the  year.  A  large  percentage  of  the 
animals  slaughtered  must  be  of  dairy  origin.  This  may  be  brought 
out  by  the  large  percentage  of  cows  slaughtered  and  by  the  fact  that 
fewer  cows  are  slaughtered  when  milk  production  is  relatively  high.28 

TABLE  20 

Percentage  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  as  Steers  in  the  United  States, 

1922-1928 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Avg. 

1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 
1927 
1928 

59.30 
52.36 
55.01 
50.38 
51.78 
52.97 
50.47 

55.81 
47.80 
51.10 
43.37 
51.39 
50.11 
46.31 

51.89 
45.90 
44.39 
43.63 
47.31 
49.57 

44.67 
41.79 
37.65 
36.13 
38.79 
36.94 

43.71 
34.64 
34.17 
33.90 
38.04 
35.38 

46.05 
41.93 
40.20 
38.87 
44.53 
39.04 

46.91 
45.16 
45.44 
41.92 
45.04 
39.09 

51.02 
46.21 
47.37 
45.91 
49.55 
45.92 

54.25 
47.62 
48.23 

47.77 
50.15 
49.26 

49.64 
52.47 
55.03 
53.18 
50.39 
52.60 

55.79 
56.62 
56.79 
53.52 
57.21 
54.54 

58.70 
56.13 
52.27 
51.39 
51.65 
52.12 

46.88 
47.01 

Sources  of  data:  Monthly  reports  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets. 


28  Voorhies,  Edwin  C.     Economic  aspects  of  the  dairy  industry.     California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  437:  47.     1927. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


45 


Distribution  of  Market  Grades. — Results  of  an  investigation  car- 
ried on  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  in  192029  showed 
the  estimated  quantity  of  each  grade  of  cattle  marketed  during  that 
year  to  be  as  follows : 

Cattle  (Steers)  Per  cent  of 

total  marketed 

Choice  and  prime 4.5 

Good    22.0 

Medium  53.0 

Common 17.0 

Canners   3.5 

100.0 

These  figures  would  be  subject  to  change  from  year  to  year, 
owing  to  fluctuations  in  market  demand  and  conditions  of  production. 

Grading  and  Stamping  Beef. — The  Division  of  Livestock,  Meats 
and  Wool  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  has  been  attempt- 
ing to  grade  and  stamp  beef  carcasses  in  order  to  supply  evidence  of 
the  true  grade  in  such  manner  that  it  will  be  easily  distinguished  by 
everyone,  including  the  individual  consumer.30  The  service,  which 
has  embraced  prime  and  choice  beef,  consists  of  stamping  the  carcasses 
with  a  roller  stamp  which  is  run  the  full  length  so  that  every  cut 
bears  the  evidence  of  official  grading.  The  service  is  available  at  a 
number  of  points  in  the  country.    It  is  not  universal  as  yet. 


TABLE  21 

Cattle  Slaughtered  in  California,  1921-1927 


Bulls  and 

Year 

Cows 

Steers 

Calves 

stags 

Total 

1921 

242,545 

330,763 

224,654 

7,944 

805,906 

1922 

239,409 

384,786 

317,564 

10,001 

951,760 

1923 

291,020 

392,637 

364,475 

9,916 

1,058,048 

1924 

320,909 

350,528 

367,477 

10,504 

1,049,418 

1925 

380,909 

317,640 

385,931 

11,967 

1,096,447 

1926 

383,124 

369,059 

437,098 

12,918 

1,202,199 

1927 

373,108 

378,608 

432,972 

14,114 

1,198,802 

Sources  of  data:  California  State  Dept.  Agr.   Slaughtering  in  different  counties.   Cattle  Protection 
Service.   Mimeographed  summary  reports  are  issued  annually. 


29  Roberts,  John.  Food  animals  and  meat  consumption  in  the  United  States 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Cir.  241:  1-23.     1926. 

30  An  excellent  account  of  this  work,  which  was  inaugurated  on  May  2,  1927 
will  be  found  in  National  Livestock  and  Meat  Board.  Grading  and  stamping 
prime  and  choice  beef  carcasses.  National  Livestock  and  Meat  Board  Bui  1- 
1-15.    Chicago,  111.    1927. 


46 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Number  Slaughtered  in  California. — The  total  number  of  animals 
slaughtered  for  beef  increased  from  1921  through  1926  (fig.  12). 
During  approximately  the  same  period  the  total  number  of  cattle 
in  the  state  declined  slightly.  The  demand  for  beef  for  slaughter 
within  the  state  seems  to  have  been,  maintained  during  1927  when 
the   second   largest   number   of   cattle    (a   slightly   larger   slaughter 


Total  Slaughter  of  Cattle  (Exclusive  of  Calves)  in  California,  1921-1927 

Thousand  Head  


1921 


1922         1923 


1924- 


Fig.  12. — Both  the  total  slaughter  and  the  slaughter  of  cattle  originating  in 
California  have  increased  since  1921.  The  total  slaughter  shows  but  little  seasonal 
variation.  California  cattle  give  evidence  of  a  distinct  seasonal  variation,  since 
they  appear  on  the  market  in  the  greatest  numbers  during  the  late  spring  and 
summer.  (Data  from  table  22  and  similar  data  not  published.) 

occurred  during  1926)  since  1921  were  slaughtered  at  the  highest 
prices  obtained  since  the  latter  year.  Slaughter  of  mature  animals 
during  the  first  six  months  of  1928  was  4  per  cent  less  than  that 
during  the  similar  period  for  1927,  while  calf  slaughter  decreased  by 
2  per  cent  during  the  same  period. 

Classification  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  in  California. — During  the 
years  1921-1926  the  increase  in  the  number  of  cows  slaughtered  was 
relatively  greater  than  that  for  steers.  More  than  50  per  cent  of  the 
mature  cattle  slaughtered  during  1925  and  1926  were  cows.  Some 
of  this  increase  undoubtedly  represented  reductions  in  beef  herds. 
With  the  increasing  human  population  and  the  apparent  increased 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


47 


consumption  of  dairy  products  it  might  appear  that  an  increasingly 
large  number  of  cows  slaughtered  would  be  of  dairy  origin.  However, 
if  improvement  in  the  butterfat  production  of  cows  is  continued,  the 
number  of  cows  required  to  supply  the  dairy  products  demanded  need 
not  be  increased  greatly.  An  increase  in  the  butterfat  production  of 
the  dairy  cows  of  the  state  ought  to  aid  the  producer  of  beef  cattle 


Total  Slaughter  of  Calves  in  California,  1921-1927 

Thousand  Head 


1921 


1922 


1925 


1926 


192T 


1928 


1929 


Fig.  13. — The  slaughter  of  calves  in  California  has  increased  more  rapidly 
than  the  slaughter  of  mature  cattle  since  1921.  There  has  been  a  tendency  for  a 
somewhat  larger  slaughter  during  the  five  or  six  months  beginning  in  July.  The 
larger  number  of  calves  originating  in  California  are  usually  slaughtered  earlier 
in  the  year,  the  high  months  being  those  of  the  late  spring  and  summer.  The 
slaughter  of  dairy  calves  originating  in  the  state  unquestionably  has  its  influence. 

(Data  from  table  23   and  similar  data  not  published.) 

since  fewer  cows  of  dairy  origin  would  be  required  to  supply  the  need 
for  dairy  products.  During  1927,  the  number  of  steers  again  exceeded 
the  number  of  cows  slaughtered.  One  contributing  factor  making  for 
this  change  was  the  rise  in  price  of  beef  cattle  during  the  latter  part 
of  the  year.  During  the  first  six  months  of  1928  the  number  of  cows 
slaughtered  increased  by  13.1  per  cent  compared  with  the  similar 
period  for  1927,  while  the  number  of  steers  slaughtered  decreased  by 
18.8  per  cent. 


48 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


NOSOTllUJNffl- 

<    CO 

N    ION 

^tMCM^i-tOS^Ht-. 

0  -<*< 

Ol      >fl      T)l 

OS    O    O 

01 

CM 

n   a>  00 

©     ->*     OS     I-H 

Q 

CM 

1-1     ^H     CO 

CM 

OS    CM    CM 

^1    -*    CO 

CO 

N    N    N    O    W 

CO    N    Cs 

as  co   cm 

0 

CM 

^H    i-H    •<$<    CM    © 

"5    <*    Ttl     H    00 

1-H      US 

O    T-H    CM 

CM 

UO    •**< 

UO     i-l     CO 

fc 

cm" 

CM             00 

<M 

CO    ^H 

.-H     O     -* 

CI   •<*    to 

N    CO    00    H    O    O    O0 

N    OO    tO    N    H    OO 

-g 

t~-    C 

CM     i-H     CO    CM    OO 

CO    CM    Tt 

CM     OS    ^H 

O)    (N    H    IM    N 

OS 

05     lO     1- 

O)    N    N 

O 

CM            lO 

"5 

00    -^1     CO 

rH    ■*    to 

CM 

■*    t>-    ^    O    ■<*< 

CO     O 

i-l    00    OS 

OO 

OS    CM    CM    V 

r-H     03 

OS    -^    CO 

0. 

O 

00             CO    — 

CM 

CM    lO 

t^     CO     ^ 

02 

CM             CO 

CM 

CM 

CM    UO    00 

H     IC     CO 

O 

tH 

,_, 

O 

co   O 

m  n  n 

hi 

co 

OS 

CO 

t^ 

CM    CM 

OS    CM    CM 

3 

CM 

CM 

■* 

O    ■*     l« 

<J 

i-T  tjT  us 

CO     CO 

£ 

CO 

"# 

t^    «3    CM 

CO 

t^-    O    OO 

"3 

!>• 

00    CO    -^ 

i-a 

co"  b-T 

U0    lO 

oj 

r^ 

CO 

co   co   co 

CO 

"0 

CM    Tt<     CO 

t- 

K)    *    Ol 

CM 

3 

OS 

>-5 

CM     CM 

CO     CO 

00 

_ 

c 

a>  >o  Tji 

>> 

r^ 

-CH 

a 

O   co   r-~ 

c3 

CM 

■^ 

00    CM    O 

3 

~ 

1-H     oT    ^h" 
US    CO 

__, 

T»<     CC 

t—    t~-    00 

oc 

00    CO 

tj<  r^   ^h 

a 

CO    cn 

lO     CO    lO 

X 

10  10 

■»*<      ^H      CO 

"5 

CM    >0 

00 

lO     O     "0 

<l 

cm" 

KJ      H      OO 

to    «3 

CM    O- 

CO    -^    O 

1-H     t-> 

00 

t^    ^f    -r* 

52  10 

CM    OO    •<*< 

~H      ifl 

0 

t~-    •*     CM 

03 

•^     CO 

b-            00 

CM 

CO 

CO    ■*     00 

s 

CO 

CM 

CM     OS     -h 

HT*     * 

CM    b- 

■* 

as  co 

OS    CM 

t^ 

CO    10    00 

J2 
OJ 

CO     ■— 

00 

0   c- 

b-   c-~ 

>* 

t^    CM     OS 

00   0 

O     CM 

t--    CM 

•* 

l>.    0*    .-( 

Ph 

t^ 

-* 

lO    OO    ^ 

^    M    US 

■^H     *4 

0    00    ■*    cC 

CM    Ut 

05 

OS    N    tO 

03 

us  us 

to    H    00    ^ 

02    -<* 

CO 

■*    t^    CM 

10  oc 

00    i-H    CM 

O0      Tf 

t^ 

00    CO    US 

* 

"H 

00 

m 

00  0   as 
1-H    -^    us 

t-    cC 

*    US    lO    M 

-*       iH 

t-~   r^  oc 

CO     O     CO 

*c" 

00    t-- 

O0    CO    CM     C 

OS     © 

OS    02    ^ 

CO      ^H      t^ 

CO     C~- 

"1    ""I    "*".   °" 

as    u; 

O    N    ih 

O     OS     OS 

O 

CO    CM 

0"  co*  ©" 

t*T  n 

UO    CM* 

O"    ^J*    ^j" 

.-H             US 

<M 

co   0   co 

H®N 

O    C 

us    co    02    er- 

tm a- 

CM    OS    OC 

ifl    N    N 

CO 
CM 
OS 

IO     CC 

as     0     O     1— 

■<*  -t 

10  m  ■* 

i-H     CO     1-^ 

us   co 

N    U)    Ol    •- 

CO    CO 

CM    CO 

Tf<     CO     O 

00    — 

US    «ft     »H 

0  oc 

O 

CO    W5    OS 

~ 

CO 

<M 

■* 

tO    O0    1)1 

T-l       US       t^- 

CO-  0 

CM    ■<*<    CO    1- 
CM    OO    CO    CM 

^H     © 

■**<    CO 

t>-      OS      Tfl 

uo 

CM 

CO    CM 

CM    rf 

00    CO 

O0    00    N 

CO    »fl 

■**<   a>   CO   t^ 

.   °\   **. 

O      0_     l-H 

OS 

OO    t-- 

O    M    ■* 

0"   t^ 

OS*   i-H 

t*T  co"  0" 

~" 

-H                O 

CM 

CO 

CO     •*     -H 

~s    us    t>- 

co   r- 

O      -H      US      1- 

t^    CO 

l-»     -^     CC 

■*  o>  ra 

>* 

00    CO 

■*    CO    O    IN 

t*    lO 

HOO     N 

as  co  co 

T*     US 

t^.  0   as  0 

CM    CO 

OS    CO 

N    ■*    N 

OS 

co   o- 

CO   00   CO   ■>* 

00   OC 

".OS*      . 

US*    CD*    ^7 

00  as  00 

10 

CM 

.-H     "*     CO 

a 

"3 

'5 

oj   -tt 

O 

O 

Pi 

e 
«( 

c 

c 

8 

b 

X 

5 

•S  5 

C 

c 

N 
< 

g 
C 

O 

0 

& 

X 

i 
T 

S 
0 

1 

09 

e 

0 

c 

0j 
I- 

c 

to 

rt 

P 

's 

0 
PS 

-a 
0 

c 

cd 

O 

.2  -° 


.2  8 

-g  03 

-2  £ 

2  § 

Pm  S 

oj  to 


is 

a    . 


s2  73 


S    aj 


*o  ^ 


05  X 1  OJ 

•J  ^  I 

I  I  -o 

3  S  ■« 

a  "oj  oj 

OH  § 

•j  .  a 


^   o   ^ 

(0     J    ^ 

8  a-- 

t.    aj    .- 

o  w    > 
02    OJ    OJ 

1  I 

02  J 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


49 


I 

i-- 

,_! 

■*& 

TO 

CO 

TO 

— 

s 

o 

1 « 

t- 

OO 

»-l    -^             M    CN    H 

■^   o  ■* 

o 

CO 

0>    CO             H    CN 

i-h    IO    CO 

cu 

Q 

CO 

■>*    CO    o 
CO    CO 

^ 

O    O    CO    CO    CO 

Oi 

eo 

o)  to  w 

> 

o 

00 

r-   -h   io   o   -h 

OO 

CO    CO    1/5 

t^. 

CO             OO    CO 

■* 

o  >o  io 

£ 

CO 

1/5    CD*   -h* 
CO    CO 

CO 

CO 

-H    .-H    CO 

CO 

IO   »  ■* 
*  m   oo 

CO 

.O      -H      ^H 

CO 

© 

CO    <-c    CO 

CO 

t>-    Oi    CD 

O 

lO~ 

-'" 

N    X    CD 
CO    CO 

r^ 

OO 

O!     N     O 

OO     CO 

H     O     O 

CD    1^    IO 

OO     ©     Oi 

a 

t~ 

Oi    CO    CO 

N    IO    N 

1-1 

won 

CO    CO 

IO 

CO 

■* 

U0 

^ 

t^    Oi    CO 

£ 

CO 

r^ 

OO 

CO 

CO 

■«*<    O    io 

T* 

00    CD    ■* 

«< 

co  co  a> 

CO    CO 

CO 

OO 

r-   oo 

IO    00    CO 

j^> 

IO 

r^ 

t~-     CO 

1—    CO    O 

t-- 

CO 

rt    *     CD 

S 

1-9 

H    CN    CO 

CO    CO 

a> 

CD 

ct> 

CO 

N    00    IO 

IO 

CO 

IO 

t>.    I-.    IO 

t^ 

c 

CO 

00    CO    <-H 

<M 

3 

05 

H-S 

CO     t— 

CO    CO 

"5 

. 

* 

O     -H     -H 

>> 

o> 

CO 

CN    *     CD 

03 

H     IO     CO 

s 

CO    CO 
CO    CO 

oo 

CO 

,-1    O    *H 

IO 

CO     IO     i— 1 

IO 

IO    O    CO 

<«J 

co"  CO 

CO    CO 

t-' 

■*    (O    N 
OO    N    H 

CO    O     1^    O    CO 

O    CO    CO    t^    o 

■^       T-H      IO 
CO     (N     H 

09 

*     «3                           r-t 

CO     ^H    lO 

S 

-H    IO     CD 
CO    CO 

OO 

o 

-*<  io 

O    CT> 

CO    CO    00 

0 

CO 

CO     CO 

T*      Oi 

CO     CO    ■«* 

CO 

Oi    00 

CO 

*    IO    Ol 

h 

co"  o"  co"     • 

CO    CO 

o 

M    ^     Ol    t)I    Ol 

cN   oo   rt   ra   co 

Oi    CO    CO 

a 

c3 

o 

OO     CO     r-c 

CO 

N    N             ©     ^H 

■*    co   oo 

•-S 

*■"' 

.-<                 .-( 

•«*    CD    O 
CO    CO 

lOCOOOOCOCOOOCOCN 

■*  co  r~ 

13 

NNWHI-    MOtO^W 

OO    IO    CO 

t>-             O             OO    OO    N    1(5    CO 

«    W    O) 

0 

b-             r-<             t~    CO             ~H    *-< 

-<n"  -^r  oo 

M    N    O 

CO    ■* 

COCOOCOCT.    -HCOCT500COC 

0O    Oi    CO 

CO 

co«io          »o   r^  o   o>  o          »- 

*    N    CN 

coco-*          oo   «  n   O)   co 

O)    N    N 

OS 

CO                               o"    CO    CO    CO     CO 

IO    CO     Oi 

-H                               CO 

■<»<    r^   .-( 

CO      "* 

nn-HifliosoNoio 

O)    N    CD 

»o 

CM 

CO     CO    O             0O    N    H    (ij    w    * 

O    N    OO 

M    M    OO             CM    U5    O    N    a    N 

»-l    y-l    CO 

CO             ^h             N    *    N    N    CN 

OO    OO    CO 

~ 

IO    (N    OO 
.                      CO    CO 

cDcoor-^cneoco-HcO"- 

<             O    CD    CD 

CO 

*0O»MWcMC9N»W 

i«    N    IN 

o>cot)<cO'<cjt)<N'* 

*-<    CO    IO 

c» 

o"                   o"  tjT  cn"  to"  ^ 

t>T  o  i~-T 

CO                                               <-< 

rf<     CO     CD 

CO    CO 

C 

"3 

6 

< 

5 

s 

c 
1 

t 

:     < 

i       1 

•is 
i-s 

cj  T3 

C    - 

-    - 

J            -S   ~     « 

rizon 
olora 
laho. 
^onta 
evad 
ew  M 
regor 
exas.. 

tah 

11 

2            O     c3     fc« 

5       HOG 

" 

t 

)    £ 

7- 

:  z 

7 

c 

)  E- 

1 1= 

$ 

-  c 

1 

<1     oj 


w    o 

^   S 

1  B 


or)     !S    -r; 

'3  cii  ^ 
r  >  <d 
o   o  co 

11.1 

Z  I  2 
III 

»cnO 

fl      CV      J) 

1?5 

ft  —  ^3 
0  H  cu 
h    5    3 


3    03    a; 


5  5  o 

>>  a  a 

3  >  * 

■Si  5 

-2     ^  03 

ft  "2  >> 

a  a  « 

O     D* 

^^  a 

o3    m  o 

«    co  5 


s  1 

<y  ^3 


50  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

On  studying  the  data  from  California  it  has  been  noticed  that  the 
largest  relative  numbers  of  steers  were  slaughtered  in  the  large  urban 
centers  of  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco.  The  preponderance  of 
cows  slaughtered  in  the  dairy  sections  of  the  state  is  striking. 

The  actual  and  relative  increases  in  the  number  of  calves  slaugh- 
tered is  noteworthy  (fig.  13).  The  increase  in  the  number  of  dairy 
cows,  a  trend  toward  younger  meat  animals  and  smaller  cuts,  and  the 
relatively  higher  price  which  has  prevailed  for  calves  have  been  con- 
tributing factors  in  making  for  this  increase.  The  demand  for  veal 
rather  than  beef  is  comparable  to  the  demand  for  lamb  rather  than 
mutton. 

Some  slight  confusion  may  exist  relative  to  the  term  'calves.' 
'Calf  meat'  is  the  meat  of  an  immature  bovine  animal  usually  between 
three  and  ten  months  of  age  at  the  time  of  slaughter.  These  animals 
generally  weigh  from  250  to  400  pounds  and  are  of  range  birth  and 
management.  'Veal  calves'  are  usually  not  over  twelve  weeks  of  age 
at  the  time  of  slaughter. 

Origin  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  in  California. — Approximately  three- 
quarters  of  the  cattle  (cows,  steers,  bulls  and  stags)  slaughtered  in 
California  have  their  immediate  origin  within  the  state.  No  doubt, 
however,  many  of  those  counted  as  having  their  immediate  origin 
within  the  state  have  come  into  the  state  as  feeders.  The  reverse  sit- 
uation is  also  true  to  a  limited  degree.  Since  1924,  there  has  been 
an  actual  and  relative  decrease  in  the  number  of  mature  slaughter 
cattle  originating  outside  of  the  state.  Nevada,  Utah,  Arizona,  and 
Oregon  have  sent  the  largest  numbers  of  cattle  into  the  state  for  im- 
mediate slaughter.  The  number  of  feeders  sent  into  the  state  has 
shown  a  decided  increase  (p.  99).  This  accounts  for  the  apparent 
tendency  of  the  state  to  take  care  of  its  own  demands  for  slaughter 
cattle. 

Calves  weighing  from  250-400  pounds  stand  fairly  long  shipment 
over  the  railroads  and  appear  on  the  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles 
markets.  Out-of-state  supplies  have  furnished  from  8  to  16  per  cent 
of  the  calves  for  slaughter  in  California  during  the  seven  years  1921- 
1927,  inclusive.  During  this  period  there  has  not  been  a  tendency 
for  the  proportion  of  receipts  from  out  of  the  state  to  change.  The 
largest  numbers  of  calves  shipped  into  California  for  slaughter  have 
originated  in  Nevada,  Arizona,  Texas,  and  New  Mexico.  Rather 
abrupt  and  pronounced  changes  can  be  detected  in  the  origin  of  calves 
slaughtered.  Nevada  has  become  increasingly  important  as  a  shipper 
since  1921  (except  during  1927),  while  supplies  from  Texas  have  been 
proportionately  less.     Arizona  shipments  have  not  changed  greatly. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


51 


Dairy  veal  calves  are  not  usually  shipped  long"  distances,  but  con- 
siderable numbers  are  placed  on  the  markets  of  the  state.  Large 
numbers  of  veal  and  calf  carcasses  are  trucked  into  San  Francisco 
from  nearby  sections,  that  is,  from  parts  of  the  north  coast  section 
and  interior  valleys  of  California  which  are  within  roughly  a  one- 
hundred-mile  radius.  A  city  ordinance  in  Los  Angeles  prohibits  the 
importation  of  dressed  veal.  All  calves  must  come  in  alive  and  be 
slaughtered  there,  unless  of  course  they  are  slaughtered  under  federal 
inspection. 


Seasonal  Variation  of  Shipments  of  Slaughter  Cattle  into  California, 


1921-1922 
The  average  month 


100. 


Indices  of  Seasonal  Var/ at/on 


r 

■\ 

^ 

HO 

\ 

1 

00 

60 

o 

Jan.       Feb.      Mar.       Apr.       May     June.      Jo(c/        Aug.       Sept     Oct.        Nov.      Dec. 

Fig.  14. — California  is  dependent  on  outside  states  for  a  considerable  part 
of  the  cattle  necessary  to  supply  the  demands  within  the  state  for  beef.  Ship- 
ments of  slaughter  cuttle  from  outside  the  state  are  especially  light  from  May 
until  August,  during  which  there  is  at  times  an  actual  surplus  of  cattle  on  the 
California  market.  During  the  past  eight  yens  the  heaviest  demand  for  slaughter 
cattle  from  the  outside  has  occurred  from  October  to  March,  inclusive. 

(Data  from  table  24.) 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Slaughter,  California. — No  pronounced  sea- 
sonal variation  is  evident  in  the  slaughter  of  mature  animals  originat- 
ing in  California.  The  slaughter  of  animals  originating  outside  of 
California  shows  a  decided  seasonal  variation,  the  five  months  May  to 
September  being  the  low  months  in  this  connection  (table  24  and 
fig.  14). 


52 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  24 

Indices  of  Seasonal  Variation,  Cattle  Imported  into  California  for 

Slaughter,  1921-1927 


Month 

Index 

Month 

Index 

173.9 
131.2 
154.8 

99.9 

32.8 

9.6 

July 

August 

7.6 

19.5 

73  2 

October 

November 

December 

172  2 

173  9 

151  7 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  based  upon  data  as  reported  in  the  Monthly  Reports  of 
Cattle  imported  into  California  for  slaughter  issued  by  the  Cal.  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Cattle  Protection 
Service.  The  median  link  relative  method  has  been  used  in  computing^the^seasonal^variation.  The 
average  monthlyjndex  =  100. 

TABLE  25 
Calf  and  Veal  Eequirements  of  San  Francisco,  California,  1922-1927 


Country 

City 

U.  S. federal 

Total 

Year 

slaughter 

slaughter 

slaughter 

slaughter 

1922 

90,112 

27,208 

14,721 

132,041 

1923 

88,090 

32,550 

11,923 

132,563 

1924 

69,567 

41,344 

14,384 

125,295 

1925 

58,567 

32,295 

9,981 

100,843 

1926 

49,883 

33,075 

9,730 

92,688 

1927 

52,079 

27,191 

10,579 

89,789 

Source  of  data:  Wm.  E.  Schneider,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  San  Francisco  Office. 


TABLE  26 

Beceipts  of  Country  Dressed  Veal  Calves  at  San  Francisco, 

California,  1922-1927 


Month 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September. 

October 

November.. 

December... 

Total 


1922 


9,208 
8,865 
11,847 
8,422 
8,208 
6,503 
5,057 
5,054 
5,415 
7,031 
7,332 
7,070 


90,112 


1923 


5,749 
8,272 
9,124 
8,785 
8,088 
8,623 
5,870 
3,596 
6,232 
7,722 
6,269 
9,760 


88,090 


1924 


6,938 
7,507 
9,310 
4,722 
8,273 
2,565 
3,357 
4,180 
4,299 
5,193 
4,420 


69,567 


1925 


7,077 
8,694 
6,333 
4,861 
5,434 
2,964 
2,363 
1,953 
3,315 
5,257 
4,656 
5,660 


58,567 


1926 


5,560 
5,221 
6,050 
4,573 
3,283 
3,055 
1,797 
1,713 
3,401 
4,480 
5,340 
5,410 


49,883 


1927 


4,497 
4,867 
12,310 
3,505 
2,176 
3,219 
4,913 
3,757 
3,778 
5,299 
4,434 
6,497 


59,252 


Note. — Under  provisions  of  City  Board  of  Health  all  country  dressed  calves  shipped  into  San  Fran- 
cisco must  have  viscera  included  so  that  adequate  inspection  for  wholesomeness  can  be  made. 
Source  of  data:  San  Francisco  City  Board  of  Health. 

From  the  limited  data  on  hand,  no  definite  seasonal  movement  in 
the  slaughter  of  calves  is  evident  in  the  state,  although  there  is  appar- 
ently a  larger  slaughter  during  the  fall  months  of  the  year.  The 
six  months  beginning  in  August  show  the  largest  slaughter  of  calves 
originating  outside  of  the  state.  In  general,  these  shipments  are 
exceptionally  light  during  April,  May,  June,  and  July. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  53 

An  analysis  of  the  slaughter  of  veal  calves  shows  considerable 
variation.  Data  on  receipts  of  country-dressed  veal  calves  at  San 
Francisco  show  that  slaughter  during  the  month  of  March  is  above 
normal  (table  26),  while  that  during  the  summer  months  is  below. 
During  the  remainder  of  the  year  a  pronounced  tendency  is  not 
evident. 

Origin  of  Animals  Slaughtered  at  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles. 
— San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  are  the  largest  cattle  markets  of 
the  state,  and  an  analysis  of  the  origin  of  the  animals  slaughtered  in 
those  markets  together  with  the  seasonal  changes  in  the  origin  should 
prove  to  be  of  value.  Owing  to  the  wide  areas  from  which  California 
draws  its  supplies  of  cattle  and  the  variations  in  climatic  and  feed 
conditions  an  orderly  marketing  of  the  product  is  highly  desirable. 
Figures  15,  16,  17  and  18  show  the  origin  of  cattle  slaughtered  at 
San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  during  certain  specific  weeks  of  each 
month  during  1927.  The  year  1927  seems  to  have  been  normal  as 
maps  of  other  years  correspond  rather  closely  with  those  for  1927. 
The  dots  represent  the  places  of  origin,  while  lines  connect  these  with 
either  Los  Angeles  or  San  Francisco,  the  centers  of  slaughter.  Maps 
were  made  for  each  week  of  the  year,  but  it  is  believed  that  those 
depicted  in  figures  15,  16,  and  17  will  give  a  comprehensive  picture 
of  the  seasonal  changes.  Data  were  obtained  from  records  of  slaughter 
in  both  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  and  these  in  turn  were  checked 
by  the  tabulations  on  the  hide  and  brand  inspections.  During  Janu- 
ary, cattle  destined  for  slaughter  were  drawn  from  a  wide  area  (fig. 
15).  Utah,  Arizona,  Nevada,  and  Montana  contributed  the  largest 
numbers.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  Nevada  shipped  almost  exclu- 
sively to  San  Francisco.  In  California,  shipments  originated  at 
scattering  points  in  the  Sacramento,  San  Joaquin,  and  Imperial  val- 
leys, and  the  northeastern  mountain  counties.  During  the  next  two 
months  there  was  a  gradual  lessening  of  receipts  from  outside  the 
state  (fig.  15).  San  Francisco  apparently  received  more  cattle  from 
the  more  northerly  of  the  plateau  states  while  supplies  for  Los  Angeles 
were  drawn  more  largely  from  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  and  California 
points.  During  April,  shipments  from  Montana,  Idaho,  and  Utah 
gradually  ceased,  but  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  continued  to 
receive  supplies  from  Arizona  and  Nevada  respectively.  Shipments 
from  the  middle  coast  areas  became  frequent,  but  San  Joaquin  Valley 
points  were  the  principal  points  of  origin.  A  number  of  shipments 
were  made  from  Sacramento  Valley  points  (fig.  15).  Throughout  the 
year  shipments  originated  in  Imperial  Valley. 


Fig.  15. — Each  dot  represents  the  origin  of  a  shipment  of  cattle  slaughtered 
on  either  the  San  Francisco  or  the  Los  Angeles  market,  while  the  lines  show  the 
destination  of  each  shipment.  During  the  first  three  months  of  the  year  cattle 
are  drawn  from  rather  a  wide  area.  During  April  the  shipments  begin  to  center 
within  the  state,  few  originating  outside. 

(Data  and  original  maps  furnished  by  the  Western   Cattle  Marketing  Association.) 


[54] 


Origin  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  on  the  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco 

Markets  During  Certain  Weeks  of  January,  February, 

March,  and  April,  1927 


Fig.  16. — Except  for  a  few  shipments  from  Arizona,  Nevada,  and  Texas,  the 
state  supplied  its  own  needs  for  slaughter  cattle  during  this  period.  Within  the 
state  the  north  coast  section  gave  evidence  of  considerable  activity  during  August. 
It  should  be  fully  realized  that  as  climatic  and  feed  conditions  vary  from  year 
to  year,  shipments  vary  from  different  localities. 

(Data   and  original  maps  furnished  by  the  Western  Cattle  Marketing  Association.) 


[56] 


Origin  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  on  the  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco 

Markets  During  Certain  Weeks  of  May,  June,  July, 

and  August,  1927 


>>wi 


Fig.  17. — During  the  last  four  months  of  the  year  both  markets  drew  heavily 
on  cattle  from  Utah,  Arizona,  Idaho,  and  Nevada,  and  at  times  from  Wyoming, 
Texas,  New  Mexico,  and  southern  Oregon.  Shipments  from  the  northeastern 
counties  of  the  state  were  frequent  during  this  period. 

(Data  and  original  maps  furnished  by  the  Western   Cattle  Marketing  Association.) 


[58. 


Origin  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  on  the  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco 

Markets  During  Certain  Weeks  of  September,  October, 

November,  and  December,  1927 


Fig.  18. — Poultry  is  largely  substituted  for  beef  during  the  holiday  season  at 
both  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles.  Note  that  there  was  apparently  but  little 
slaughter  during  the  week  which  ended  December  31,  compared  with  either  the 
previous  week  or  that  which  ended  December  17  or  December  10. 

(Data   and  original  maps  furnished  by  the  Western   Cattle  Marketing  Association.) 


[60] 


Origin  of  Cattle  Slaughtered  at  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  During 
the  Weeks  Ending  December  10,  17,  24,  and  31,  1927. 


/2-/0-27K 


Z2-/7-; 


ia-24-27 


62 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


From  May  until  August  (fig.  16)  both  markets  relied  largely  on 
the  supplies  of  cattle  originating  within  the  state,  with  occasional 
shipments  from  Arizona.  During  these  four  months,  the  San  Joaquin 
and  Sacramento  valleys,  the  middle  coast  section,  and  Imperial  Valley 
made  contributions  to  the  supplies.  The  north  coast  section  showed 
considerable  activity  during  August  and  September. 


100 


Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Beef  and  Veal,  United  States,  1900-1927 
Poancfis  /D<?r  Cop  (fa 


/ 
/ 

\ 

8 

K  1 

o 

/?< 

y 

1/6 

><?/ 

/ 

/ 

>* 

/ 

\ 

^ 

N 

\ 

i. 

^»=5 

=— 

iN 

N 

s 

s 

/ 

v — 

\ 
\ 

s 
s 

> 

-^ 

** 

Beef 

Vi 

Tc 

/ 

SO 


60 


40 


20 


J900       J903 


J9IO 


/9/J 


1920 


J  925 


Fig.  19. — Beef  has  declined  in  per-capita  consumption  since  1900,  while  veal 
has  increased.  The  percentage  decline  (trend  values)  for  beef  plus  veal  has  been 
8.58  per  cent  and  for  beef  11.67  per  cent,  while  the  per-capita  consumption  of 
veal  has  increased  36.84  per  cent. 

(Data  from  table  27.) 

Toward  the  latter  part  of  September  supplies  gradually  were 
drawn  from  wider  areas  and  during  the  last  four  months  of  the 
year  Utah,  Arizona,  Idaho,  Nevada,  and  at  times  southern  Oregon, 
Wyoming,  Texas,  and  New  Mexico  shipped  supplies  to  the  two  markets 
studied  (fig.  17).  Within  the  state,  supplies  originated  in  widely 
separated  areas,  although  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  north 
central  and  northeastern  counties  contributed  considerably  to  the 
movement. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  63 

One  interesting1  and  important  phase  of  the  results  is  someAvhat 
clearly  brought  out  by  studying  the  maps  for  the  weeks  ending 
December  10,  17,  24,  and  31,  1927  (fig.  18).  Unofficial  and  rather 
widespread  beliefs  have  prevailed  to  the  effect  that  there  is  need  for 
considerable  shipments  of  beef  at  the  Christmas  holiday  season.  From 
a  study  of  the  figures  it  is  evident  that  shipments  both  during  the 
week  before  and  after  Christmas  declined.  (It  may  be  that  beef 
destined  for  the  Christmas  trade  arrived  during  the  first  part  of 
December).  A  check  on  the  actual  data  also  showed  this  to  be  true. 
At  this  season  the  supplies  of  beef  required  are  light  owing  to  the 
shipments  of  poultry  to  the  large  markets. 


CONSUMPTION   OF    BEEF    IN   THE    UNITED   STATES   AND 
FOREIGN   COUNTRIES 

United  States. — Data  on  the  annual  consumption  of  meats  are 
available  since  1900  (table  27).  Contrary  to  the  popular  belief,  there 
has  been  but  little  change  in  the  total  per-capita  consumption  of  all 
meats  during  the  past  twenty-seven  years.  Information  on  meat  con- 
sumption for  various  strata  of  American  society  might  show  distinct 
trends,  were  the  necessary  data  available.  There  has  been  a  distinct 
decline  in  the  per-capita  consumption  of  beef  since  the  beginning  of 
the  century,  although  conclusions  drawn  from  a  comparison  of  isolated 
years  or  even  from  a  series  of  years  are  oftentimes  erroneous  unless 
the  corresponding  phase  of  the  production  cycle  is  considered.  From 
1900  to  1907  there  was  an  upward  tendency  in  the  apparent  consump- 
tion of  beef,  during  which  period  the  cattle  cycle  was  in  the  expansion 
phase.  This  was  followed  by  a  distinct  downward  trend  in  consump- 
tion (fig.  19),  which  was  accompanied  by  a  downward  movement  in 
the  cattle  cycle.  From  1915  to  1918  there  was  an  actual  increase  in 
consumption,  at  which  time  the  cattle  cycle  was  in  its  expansion  phase. 
The  expansion  was  also  reflected  in  the  large  exports.  The  three 
years  1918,  1919,  and  1920  showed  but  little  change  in  consumption. 
After  a  drop  in  1921  the  per-capita  consumption  began  to  move  up- 
ward and  this  movement  continued  until  1926.  Since  1922  cattle 
production  has  tended  downward;  the  increased  consumption  being 
the  result  of  heavy  slaughter  which  in  turn  was  caused  by  low  prices. 
The  total  slaughter  of  cattle  and  salves  since  1922  has  exceeded  the 
number  of  calves  born.  This  heavy  slaughter  did  not  affect  market 
supplies  noticeably  until  the  middle  of  1927.  The  increased  price 
during  the  last  four  months  of  the  year  tended  to  cause  a  downward 


64 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


movement  in  consumption  during  1927.  Indications  point  to  a  greatly 
decreased  per-capita  consumption  of  beef  in  1928.  The  authors  esti- 
mate that  the  lowest  point  since  1900  will  be  reached.  Unlike  beef 
consumption,  that  of  veal  has  been  tending  distinctly  upward  since 
1900. 

Since  1900,  beef,  mutton,  and  lamb  have  apparently  been  occupy- 
ing places  of  lesser  importance  in  the  meat  diet  of  the  American 
people,  while  pork  and  veal  have  been  increasing  in  importance.  In 
1927,  beef  and  veal  accounted  for  46.9  per  cent  of  the  total  consump- 
tion of  meat,  followed  by  pork  with  49.2  and  mutton  and  lamb  with 
4.0  per  cent. 

TABLE  27 
Annual  Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Meat  and  Lard  in  the  United  States, 

1900-1927 


Year 


1900. 
1901. 
1902. 
1903. 
1904 
1905. 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 
1927 


Beef 


pounds 
67  8 
69.0 
68.5 
76.0 
73  6 
73.0 
72.6 
77.5 
71.5 
75.4 


71.1 
67.7 
61.1 
60.6 
58.4 
54.5 
56.0 
59.5 
63  0 
61.6 
63.1 
56.9 
60.4 
61.3 
61.5 
62.1 
63.4 
58.0 


Veal 


pounds 
3  5 


6.8 
6.4 
6.3 
5  1 
4.6 
4.3 
5.3 
6.5 
7.4 
7.7 
7.6 
7.0 
7.3 
7.7 
8.2 
8.7 
8.2 
7.4 


Lamb  and 
mutton 


pounds 
6  8 
6.9 
7.0 
7.2 
6.8 
6.5 
6.5 
6.4 
6.3 
6.6 


8.1 
7.5 


7.4 
6.3 
6.1 
4.6 
4.7 
5.8 
5.5 
5.9 
5.0 
5.2 
5.2 
5.2 
5.5 
5.4 


Pork,  not 

including 

lard 


pounds 
64.7 
63.0 
57  8 
59.3 
62.8 
58.8 
59.7 
64.4 
66.1 
60.1 
57.1 
64.5 
618 
63.0 
62.3 
59.5 
60.1 
49.3 
54.8 
54.8 
60.5 
63.5 
66.1 
74.7 
74.7 
67.6 
65.7 
68.5 


Total 
meat* 


pounds 
142.8 
142.8 
137.7 
147.2 
148.3 
143.7 
144.2 
155.1 
150.3 
149.8 
142.2 
147.1 
138.1 
136.2 
132.7 
124.8 
127.7 
120.1 
130.1 
130.0 
136.8 
133.3 
138.8 
149.0 
149.6 
143.6 
142.8 
139.3 


Lard 


pounds 
13.2 
12.9 
11.7 
11.8 
12.4 
10. 
11. 
13. 
13. 
11. 
11. 
11. 
11. 
11. 
12. 
12.9 
13.6 
11.7 
13.3 
12.3 
13.3 
11.3 
14.2 
15.3 
15.4 
13.2 
13  5 
13.8 


Total 

meats  and 

lard 


pounds 
156.0 
155.7 
149.4 
159.0 
160.7 
153.7 
155.4 
168.6 
163.5 
161.3 
153.6 
158.4 
149.3 
147.6 
144.9 
137.7 
141.3 
131.8 
143.4 
142.3 
150.1 
144.6 
153.0 
164.3 
165.0 
156.8 
156.3 
153.1 


*  Includes  a  relatively  very  small  quantity  of  goat  meat  which  is  not  given  separately. 

Source  of  data:  Roberts,  John.  Meat  production,  consumption,  and  foreign  trade  in  the  United 
States,  calendar  years  1900-1927.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Animal  Industry  mimeographed  circular.  9.  p. 
1928. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


65 


Regional  consumption  of  Beef  and  Veal. — Estimates  (table  28) 
indicate  that  the  per-capita  consumption  of  beef  and  veal  is  greater 
in  urban  than  in  rural  areas.  Rural  areas,  on  the  other  hand,  have 
a  larger  consumption  of  pork  and  poultry.  The  variation  in  beef  and 
veal  consumption  is  less  in  the  urban  areas  of  the  country. 


TABLE  28 

Estimated  Per-Capita  Meat  Consumption  by  Eegions,  1919 

(Pounds  per  capita.) 


Total 


Beef 


Veal 


Mutton 


Pork 


URBAN 


129.9 
154.0 
163.2 
142.4 
158.9 
166.6 

64  0 
75.6 
77.5 
55.1 
66.1 
76.2 

13.5 
11.6 
11.7 
5.7 
4.4 
16.3 

10.9 
7.3 
6.9 
5.4 
8.7 

13.6 

61.5 

North  central,  east 

North  central,  west 

69.3 
67.2 
76.3 

79.7 

Western 

11.2 

Average 

155.8 

68.3 

11.8 

9.3 

66.3 

RURAL 

150.8 
171  1 
180.7 
153.7 
158.5 
171.3 

47.1 
48.3 
57.4 
28.5 
28.6 
64.7 

10.7 

7.2 
6.3 
3.2 
1.7 
9.3 

7.6 
5.8 
3.8 
4.4 
6.9 
15.8 

85.5 

North  central,  east 

North  central,  west 

South  Atlantic 

109.9 
113.1 
117.6 
121.3 

Western 

81.5 

Average 

163.2 

41  6 

5.4 

6.5 

109.7 

TOTAL  POPULATION 


North  Atlantic 

North  central,  east ... 
North  central,  west.. 

South  Atlantic 

South  central 

Western 


Average.. 


150.1 
167.3 
174.9 
150.9 
158.6 
169.0 


159.7 


59.6 

12  8 

10.0 

62.7 

9.5 

6.6 

64.1 

8.1 

4.8 

35.2 

3.8 

4.7 

36.3 

2.3 

7.3 

70 .3 

12.7 

14.7 

54  0 

8.4 

7.8 

67.7 
88.5 
97.8 
107.1 
112.8 
71.3 


8 'J. 


Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Sectional  meat  consumption  in  the  United  States.   U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Yearbook  1920:  828.   1921. 

The  per-capita  consumption  of  beef  is  larger  in  the  western  states 
than  in  any  other  section  of  the  country,  while  it  is  low  in  the  southern 
states  (table  28).  Veal  consumption  is  subject  to  greater  sectional 
variation  than  beef,  the  north  Atlantic  and  the  western  states  ranking 
high,  with  the  southern  states  low.  Estimates  made  by  W.  E. 
Schneider  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Agricul- 
tural Economics,  confirm  information  with  reference  to  the  high  con- 
sumption of  beef  and  veal  on  the  Pacific  Coast  (table  29). 


66 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Estimates  indicate  that  approximately  55  per  cent  of  the  beef  and 
veal  are  consumed  in  the  states  east  of  the  Mississippi  and  north  of 
the  Ohio  River  and  in  the  state  of  Maryland.31  In  these  states  live 
52  per  cent  of  the  nation's  population. 

Not  only  do  different  sections  vary  in  the  amount  of  meat  con- 
sumed but  there  are  variations  of  considerably  magnitude  within  each 
section.32 

TABLE  29 

Estimated  Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Meat  on  the  Pacific  Coast, 

1926 


Class 

Pounds 

Beef 

72.1 

Veal 

8  7 

25  0 

Pork 

60  0 

Lard 

10.0 

Total 

175.8 

Source  of  data:  W.  E.  Schneider,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  San  Francisco,  Calif. 


TABLE  30 

Estimated  Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Beef  and  Veal  in  Certain  Countries, 

Pre-War,*  and  Annual,  1921-1927 

(Pounds) 


Year 

United 
States 

Canada 

Argen- 
tina 

United 
King- 
dom 

Den- 
mark 

Bel- 
gium 

France 

Ger- 
many 

Australia 
(New 
South 
Wales) 

New 
Zealand 

Pre-war 

1921.    . 

74.0 
63.9 
67.7 
69.1 
69.7 
70.8 
71  6 
65.4 

60.9 
71.0 

72  9 
70.6 
70.2 
70.2 
70  1 
68.8 

254.9 
195.0 
293.3 
320.8 
300.7 
264.7 
245.7 
260.7 

61.3 
57.2 
62.9 
63.8 
63.4 
66.2 
65.5 
64.0 

44.5 

41.6 
33.8 
41.8 
46.6 
49.9 
45.2 
45.2 

49.2 
46.4 
47.4 
47.0 
49.3 
49.7 
48.9 
45.9 

40.6 
30.7 
31.9 
23.7 
34.3 
39.1 
39.7 
40  2 

152  3 
94.0 
112.6 
123.0 
126.1 
125.3 

1922 

57.7 

1923 

[      147.1** 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927     . 

*  Average  for  five  years  1909-1913  wherever  available. 
**  Average  for  ten-year  period  ending  with  1926. 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Estimated  per-capita  consumption  of  beef,  mutton 
and  pork  in  specified  countries.   Foreign  Crops  and  Markets  17  (6) :  218-220.    1928. 


3i  McFall,  Robert  James.     The  world's  meat.     624  p.,  35  diag.     D.  Appleton 
and  Co.,  New  York,  1925. 

32  Gardner,  Kelsey  B.,  and  Lawrence  A.  Adams, 
ences  in  the  purchase  and  consumption  of  meat. 
1443:  1-64.     1926. 


Consumer  habits  and  prefer - 
U.   S.  Dept.   Agr.   Dept.   Bui. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  67 

The  distribution  of  beef  consumption  as  calculated  by  the  United 
States  Department  of  xlgriculture  is  in  general  confirmed  by  data 
used  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Labor  in  calculating  the 
cost  of  living  in  different  sections.33 

Consumption  in  Other  Countries. — Contrary  to  the  generally 
prevalent  opinion,  beef  and  veal  per-capita  consumption  gradually 
increased  in  several  of  the  more  important  beef -consuming  countries 
from  1921  to  1926,  with  the  exception  of  France,  in  which  it  appears 
to  have  decreased  slightly  in  1926.  Data  on  consumption  in  Great 
Britain  and  Canada  indicate  that  in  both  countries  the  per-capita 
consumption  is  higher  than  during  the  pre-war  years.  The  Bureau 
of  Agricultural  Economics  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture reports  that  there  has  been  an  increase  in  beef  and  pork 
per-capita  consumption  in  most  countries  during  the  past  few  years 
at  the  expense  of  mutton  and  lamb.  The  per-capita  consumption  of 
beef  and  veal  is  greater  in  Argentina,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  the 
United  States  than  in  other  countries.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  with  the 
possible  exception  of  the  latter  all  are  surplus  cattle  areas  and  com- 
paratively young  countries. 


PRICES    AND    PURCHASING    POWER    OF    BEEF    CATTLE 

Annual  Inventory  Values  of  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture. — Since  1867  yearly  estimates  on  the  valuation  of  live- 
stock have  been  made  on  January  first  by  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture.  While  studies  with  reference  to  the  trends  and 
cycles  in  cattle  values  should  be  helpful  to  the  cattleman  in  preparing 
for  future  operations,  such  statistical  information  as  may  be  obtained 
does  not  enable  one  to  see  the  future  in  an  absolute  manner.  The 
data  relative  to  cycles  of  cattle  values  simply  indicate  what  has  hap- 
pened in  the  past.  In  these  inventory  studies  January  first  values 
have  been  expressed  in  terms  of  purchasing  power  (table  31). 

Warren  and  Pearson34  show  that  the  peaks  in  the  January  first 
valuations  (expressed  in  purchasing  power)  of  cattle  other  than  dairy 
cows  in  the  United  States  have  occurred  in  1885,  1899,  and  1915,  while 
the  low  points  have  been  1891,  1906,  and  1925.  These  data  have  been 
checked  by  the  authors  (table  31).  The  cycles  of  purchasing  power 
have  been  fairly  regular,  the  peaks  being  fourteen  to  sixteen  years 
apart.     The  variation  in  the  length  of  time  between  the  low  points 


34  Warren,  G.  F.,  and  F.  A.  Pearson.     Purchasing  power  of  beef  cattle,  1880- 
1927.     New  York  State  College  Agr.,  Farm  Economics  2(44)  :  659.     1927. 


68 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


and  high  points  has  been  from  six  to  ten  years.  These  high  points 
have  not  been  maintained  for  long  periods  of  time  (fig.  20).  The 
cycle  is  not  mere  magic,  the  explanation  lying  partially  in  the  fact 
that  good  profits  often  result  in  over-production,  while  low  prices 
result  in  under-production.  At  the  present  time  appearances  point 
to  an  upward  trend  in  the  cycle. 


Purchasing  Power  of  Cattle  Other  Than  Milk  Cows,  United  States  and 
California,  January  1,  1869-1928 

(Purchasing  power  is  measured  in  terms  of  the  average  purchasing  power  of 
the  dollar  in  1910-1914.) 


Purchasing  Po*er 


1870       1875        1880      1885        1890       1895       1900         1905       1910         1915         J9SO       1925 


Fig.  20. — The  purchasing  power  of  cattle  other  than  milk  cows  on  January  1 
of  each  year  in  the  United  States  and  in  California  shows  a  rather  definite  cyclical 
movement.  While  the  peaks  and  depressions  of  the  cycles  for  the  nation  and 
state  do  not  absolutely  correspond,  there  is  a  high  degree  of  correlation  between 
the  two.  The  cycles  are  characterized  by  a  rather  short  period  of  high  values  and 
a  comparatively  long  period  of  low  values.  On  January  1,  1928,  inventory  values 
were  on  the  rise.  If  the  future  can  be  interpreted  from  the  past,  values  should 
be  comparatively  high  for  the  next  two  or  three  years.  On  account  of  improve- 
ments in  cattle  breeding,  feeding,  and  management,  it  is  somewhat  dangerous  to 
make  definite  predictions.  In  the  past,  high  inventory  values  have  been  reached 
in  the  United  States  in  1884,  1899,  and  1915.  Low  values  are  somewhat  more 
obscure  but  have  occurred  in  1891,  1905,  and  1925. 


(Data  from  table  31  ) 


33  U.  S.  Dept.  Labor.    Retail  prices,  1890-1925.    U.  S.  Dept.  Labor,  Bur.  Labor 
Statis.,  Bui.  418:  4.     1926. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEP    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


69 


TABLE  31 

Actual  and  Relative  Values,  and  Relative  Purchasing  Power  of  Cattle 

Other  Than  Dairy  Cattle,  United  States  and  California, 

January  1,  1867-1928 


All- 
commodity 
i  ndex 
Jan.  of 
year  in 
col.  1 

United  States 

California 

Year 

Actual  value 
(Dollars 
per  head) 

Relative 
value 

Relative 

Purchasing 

power 

Actual  value 
(Dollars 
per  head) 

Relative 
value 

Relative 

Purchasing 

power 

/ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1867 

151 
141 
135 

15.79 
15  06 
18.73 

66.74 
63.65 
79.16 

44.2 
45  1 
58.6 

1868 

1869 

27.86 

105.13 

77.9 

1870 

125 

18.67 

78.91 

63.1 

26.22 

98.94 

79.2 

1871 

119 

20.78 

87.83 

73.8 

26.92 

101.58 

85.4 

1872 

122 

18.12 

76.58 

62.8 

23.80 

89.81 

73.6 

1873 

121 

18.06 

76.33 

63.1 

22.71 

85.70 

70.8 

1874 

117 

17.55 

74.18 

63.4 

19.52 

73.66 

63  0 

1875 

112 

16.91 

71.47 

63  8 

18.92 

71  40 

63.8 

1876 

104 

17.00 

71.85 

69.1 

20.08 

75.77 

72.9 

1877 

97 

15.99 

67.58 

69.7 

16.52 

62.34 

64.3 

1878 

89 

16.72 

70.67 

79.4 

17.23 

65.02 

73.1 

1879 

85 

15.38 

65.00 

76.5 

18.91 

71.36 

84  0 

1880 

94 

16.57 

70.03 

74  5 

18.47 

69.70 

74.1 

1881 

93 

17.33 

73.25 

78.8 

20.35 

76.79 

82.6 

1882 

95 

18.89 

79.84 

84  0 

21.77 

80.26 

84  5 

1883 

93 

21.81 

92.18 

99.1 

27.48 

103.70 

111.5 

1884 

87 

23.52 

99.41 

114.3 

29.15 

110.00 

126  4 

1885 

82 

23.25 

98.27 

119  8 

30.38 

114.64 

139.8 

1886 

81 

21.17 

89.48 

110.5 

28.66 

108.15 

133.5 

1887 

81 

19.79 

83.64 

103.3 

20.64 

77.89 

962 

1888 

83 

17.79 

75.19 

90.6 

20.50 

77.36 

93.2 

1889 

83 

17.05 

72.06 

86.8 

19.37 

73.03 

88.1 

1890 

80 

15.63 

66  06 

82  6 

16.80 

63.40 

79.1 

1891 

82 

•  14.76 

62.38 

76  1 

17.73 

66.91 

81.6 

1892 

77 

15.16 

64.07 

83.2 

17.39 

65.62 

85.2 

1893 

83 

15.24 

64.41 

77.6 

17.12 

64  60 

77.8 

1894 

83 

14.66 

61.96 

74.7 

16  17 

61.02 

73.5 

1895 

69 

14.06 

59.43 

86.1 

15.28 

57.66 

83.6 

1896 

70 

15.86 

67.03 

95.8 

15.82 

59.70 

85.3 

1897 

68 

16  65 

70.37 

103.5 

16.93 

63.83 

94  0 

1898 

70 

20.92 

88.42 

126.3 

18.91 

71.36 

101.9 

1899 

71 

22.79 

96.32 

135.7 

18  01 

67.96 

95.7 

1900 

83 

24.73 

104  52 

125.9 

24.57 

92.72 

111  7 

1901 

81 

19.93 

84.23 

104  0 

22.25 

83.96 

103  7 

1902 

83 

18  76 

79.29 

95.5 

23.48 

88.60 

106.7 

1903 

91 

18.45 

77.98 

85.7 

24  51 

92.43 

101.6 

1904 

87 

16  32 

68.98 

79.3 

21.98 

82.94 

95.3 

1905 

88 

15.15 

64.03 

72  8 

19.29 

72.79 

82.7 

1£06 

89 

15.85 

66.99 

75.3 

17.52 

66  11 

74 .3 

1907 

93 

17  10 

72.27 

77.7 

18.00 

67.92 

73  0 

1908 

91 

16.89 

71.39 

78  5 

19.00 

71  70 

78  8 

1909 

94 

17.49 

73.92 

78.6 

17  50 

66  04 

70.3 

1910 

104 

19.07 

80.60 

77.5 

20.10 

75.85 

72.9 

1911 

96 

20.54 

86.81 

90.4 

23.50 

88.68 

92  4 

1912 

96 

21  20 

89.60 

93.3 

26  70 

100  75 

104.9 

1913 

102 

26.36 

114  41 

112.2 

29.20 

110  19 

108.0 

1914 

100 

31.13 

131  57 

131.6 

33.00 

124  53 

124  5 

1915 

100 

33.38 

141  08 

141.1 

39.30 

148.30 

148.3 

1916 

115 

33.53 

141.72 

123.2 

36.30 

136.98 

119.1 

70 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  31 — (Continued) 


All- 
commodity 
index 
Jan.  of 
year  in 
col.  1 

United  States 

California 

Year 

Actual  value 
(Dollars 
per  head) 

Relative 
value 

Relative 

Purchasing 

power 

Actual  value 
(Dollars 
per  head) 

Relative 
value 

Relative 

Purchasing 

power 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1917 

156 

35.88 

151.65 

97.2 

38.30 

144.53 

92.6 

1918 

188 

40.88 

172.78 

91.9 

42.10 

158.87 

84.5 

1919 

202 

44.22 

186.90 

92.5 

48.20 

181.89 

90.0 

1920 

237 

43.21 

182.63 

77.1 

51.90 

195.85 

82.6 

1921 

173 

31.36 

132.54 

76.6 

44.50 

167.92 

97.1 

1922 

141 

23.80 

100.59 

71.3 

34.30 

129.43 

91.8 

1923 

159 

25.67 

108.50 

68.2 

34.40 

129.81 

81.6 

1924 

154 

24.44 

103.30 

67.1 

33.35 

125.85 

81.7 

1925 

163 

23.94 

101.18 

62.1 

30.55 

115.28 

70.7 

1926 

159 

27.43 

115.93 

72.9 

35.16 

132.68 

83.4 

1927 

150 

29.87 

126.25 

84.2 

37.00 

139.62 

93.1 

1928 

149 

38.95 

164.62 

110.5 

42.08 

158.79 

106.6 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  2.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  All-Commodity  Index  for  January  of  each  year.  Base  1910-1914 
=  100. 

Col.  3,  1867-1923,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Cattle:  farm  price  per  head.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1922:  820. 
1923.  1924-25,  Kaufman,  E.  E.  California  crop  report  1926.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Spec.  Pub.  74: 
45.  1927.  1926-28,  Kaufman,  E.  E.  Summary  of  California  annual  livestock  report— 1928.  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.  and  California  State  Dept.  Agr.  mimeographed  report  issued  Feb.  3,  1928. 

Col.  4.  Relatives  of  data  in  col.  3.   1910-1914  =  123. 66  =  100. 

Col.  5.  Col.  4  divided  by  Col.  2. 

Col.  6.  1869-1925.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Prices  of  farm  products  received  by  producers  4 ; 
Mountain  and  Pacific  states.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statistical  Bui.  17:  149.  1927.  1926-1928,  Kaufman,  E.  E. 
Summary  of  California  annual  livestock  report— 1928.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  and  California  State  Dept.  Agr. 
mimeographed  report  issued  Feb.  3,  1928. 

Col.  7.  Relatives  of  data  in  Col.  6.   1910-1914  =  $26.50  =  100. 

Col.  8.  Col.  7  divided  by  Col.  2. 


While  it  is  true  that  the  cycles  in  beef-cattle  valuations  have  been 
fairly  regular,  improved  methods  and  more  widespread  knowledge  of 
actual  conditions  may  logically  shorten  the  periods  which  have  been 
prevalent  in  the  past. 

Data  for  California  valuations  check  those  for  the  United  States 
closely.  High  points  in  the  value  of  cattle  other  than  dairy  cattle 
were  reached  in  1885,  1900,  and  1916,  while  low  points  were  found 
in  1877,  1894,  1909,  and  1925.  The  slight  differences  between  the 
data  for  the  nation  and  the  state  occur  mainly  in  connection  with 
the  low  points.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  troughs  are  comparatively 
broad,  the  selection  of  a  specific  year  being  more  a  matter  of  personal 
opinion  than  exact  scientific  measurement.  If  history  is  repeated  the 
trend  may  be  upward  for  the  next  three  or  four  years.  This  means 
that  if  the  general  price  level  falls  beef  cattle  will  fall  less  rapidly 
in  price  or  the  price  may  even  rise,  and  if  the  general  price  level  rises 
beef  cattle  prices  will  probably  rise  more  rapidly. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


71 


Farm  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  op  Beef  Cattle,  United  States  and 
California,  1910-1927 
(Purchasing  power  is  measured  in  terms  of  the  average  purchasing  power  of 
the  dollar  in  1910-1914.) 

Purchas/na  Power 


120 

// 

0s 

100 

s 

«» ^/ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

\     \ 

\ 
\ 

V 

\ 

Put 

c/?o, 

siny 

Power,  t/n/t&d  J 

fole 

s 

eo 

s 

* 

v\ 

;«'""* 

h>. 

^ 

>-^- 

/  / 

/ 

60 

Pi 

/re/) 

os/r 

ioPc 

wert 

Co// 

for* 

'/C 

40 

20 
0 

19/0 


J9/J 


1720 


1925 


fJO.oo 


Wei Qhicd  Average  /V/ce  />er  /QO/>ovndi 


J  9/0 


1916 


19 2  O 


7925 


Fig.  21. — High  prices  do  not  necessarily  mean  high  purchasing  power.  During 
the  period  1915-1919,  prices  were  rising  and  purchasing  power  was  actually  fall- 
ing. Since  1923  both  prices  and  purchasing  power  have  been  rising.  In  all 
probability  purchasing  power  for  the  next  two  or  three  years  will  be  comparatively 
hign«  (Data  from   table   34.) 


72 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  prevention  of  cycles  in  the  cattle  industry  has  been  a  subject 
of  interest  among  cattlemen.  The  authors  believe  that  if  cattlemen 
would  realize  that  one  of  the  important  factors  is  the  contraction 
and  expansion  of  herds  they  might  partially  prevent  these  periods 
of  depression  and  prosperity.  According  to  the  data  available  the 
cycles  are  particularly  severe  in  the  cattle  industry.  In  comparing 
cattle-value  cycles  with  those  of  other  classes  of  livestock,  it  will  be 
found  that  the  longer  it  takes  to  change  the  number  of  animals,  the 
more  violently  prices  swing  out  of  adjustment.  While  it  is  improbable 
that  minor  fluctuations  can  be  removed,  the  major  swings,  with  more 
accurate  data  available  in  the  future,  may  be  smoothed  somewhat. 


TABLE  32 

Estimated  Price  Received  by  Producers  for  Beef  Cattle  in  the 

United  States,  1910-1928 

(Per  100  pounds  live  weight.) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Weighted 
average* 

1910 

4  54 

4  54 

4.87 

5.31 

5.23 

5.04 

4.84 

4.64 

4.65 

4.64 

4.48 

4.45 

4.76 

1911 

4.58 

4.57 

4.66 

4.67 

4.59 

4.43 

4.28 

4.39 

4.43 

4.32 

4.36 

4.37 

4.46 

1912 

4.46 

4.61 

4.75 

5.15 

5.36 

5.23 

5.44 

5.38 

5.35 

5.36 

7.05 

6.89 

5.49 

1913 

5.40 

5.55 

5.88 

6.08 

6.01 

6.02 

5.98 

5.91 

5.92 

6.05 

5.99 

5.96 

5.91 

1914 

6.04 

6.16 

6.28 

6.29 

6.33 

6.32 

6.38 

6.47 

6.38 

6.23 

6.02 

6.01 

6.24 

1915 

5.99 

5.93 

5.92 

5.96 

6.13 

6.20 

6.07 

6.18 

6.06 

6.04 

5.85 

5.75 

6.01 

1916 

5.85 

5.99 

6.37 

6.66 

6.73 

6.91 

6.78 

6.51 

6.55 

6.37 

6.44 

6.56 

6.48 

1917 

6.85 

7.36 

7.91 

8.57 

8.70 

8.65 

8.30 

8.17 

8.40 

8.35 

8.21 

8.24 

8.17 

1918 

8.33 

8.55 

8.85 

9.73 

10.38 

10.40 

10.07 

9.71 

9.63 

9.33 

9.14 

9.28 

9.47 

1919 

9.65 

10.02 

10.34 

10.81 

10.84 

10.20 

9.96 

9.82 

9.02 

8.65 

8.65 

8.63 

9.63 

1920 

8.99 

8.98 

9.08 

9.20 

8.97 

9.32 

8.93 

8.56 

8.29 

7.77 

7.15 

6.36 

8.39 

1921 

6.32 

6.02 

6.36 

6.08 

5.98 

5.65 

5.40 

5.39 

4.98 

4.81 

4.69 

4.62 

5.45 

1922 

4.75 

5.07 

5  46 

5.53 

5.70 

5.84 

5.76 

5.51 

5.44 

5.48 

5.29 

5.28 

5.43 

1923 

5  51 

5.55 

5.62 

5.78 

5.77 

5.82 

5.72 

5.60 

5.70 

5  48 

5.23 

5.26 

5.57 

1924 

5.38 

5.47 

5.63 

5.82 

5.94 

5.79 

5.65 

5.67 

5.53 

5.52 

5.43 

5.35 

5.59 

1925 

5.63 

5.69 

6.18 

6.55 

6.48 

6.46 

6.55 

6.58 

6.27 

6.29 

6.14 

6.18 

6.26 

1926 

6.31 

6.42 

6.65 

6.66 

6.57 

6.56 

6.46 

6.29 

6.48 

6.43 

6.32 

6.42 

6.45 

1927 

6.45 

6.60 

6.82 

7.13 

7.17 

7.08 

7.13 

7.21 

7.42 

7.55 

8.00 

8.32 

7.29 

1928 

8.48 

8.72 

8.81 

8.92 

9.09 

9.10 

9.19 

9.51 

9.96 

9.63 

Feb.  6,  Mar.  7,  Apr.  7, 


*  Weighted  average  computed  by  authors  with  following  weights — Jan. 
May  8,  June  8,  July  8,  Aug.  9,  Sept.  10,  Oct.  10,  Nov.  11,  Dec.  8. 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1926.    U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Cattle,  Beef:  estimated  price  per  100  pounds,  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook:  1926:  1046.   1927.   1927-1928.   Monthly  issues  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets. 


Farm  Prices  of  Beef  Cattle  in  the  United  States  and  California. 
— The  value  per  head  of  beef  cattle  varies  with  condition,  quality, 
age,  size,  and  weight,  and  is  consequently  highly  variable  even  in  a 
single   state.33     The  price  would  apply   in  some   localities   to  well- 


35  Sarle,   Charles   F.      Reliability   and   adequacy   of   farm  price  data.      U. 
Dept.  Agr.  Dept.  Bui.  1480:  1-65.     1927. 


8. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF   CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


73 


finished  cattle,  while  in  some  dairy  regions  the  cattle  sold  for  beef  are 
mostly  worn-out  dairy  cattle.  The  data  in  table  34  and  figure  21 
should  be  used  only  in  a  general  way  as  they  are  perhaps  only  a  rough 
approximation  of  the  actual  situation.  Generally  speaking,  prices 
have  been  at  higher  levels  in  California  than  in  the  nation.  Since 
the  low  point  during  the  winter  of  1921-1922  prices  in  both  the  nation 
and  state  have  tended  upward. 


TABLE  33 

Estimated  Price  Keceived  by  Producers  for  Beef  Cattle  in  California, 

1910-1928 
(Per  100  pounds  live  weight.) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Weighted 
average* 

1910 

5  30 

5.30 

5  80 

5.70 

5  20 

6.00 

6.00 

5  00 

6.00 

6  00 

5  00 

6  00 

5.63 

1911 

6  20 

5  80 

5  90 

6  10 

6.50 

5.40 

5.20 

4.90 

6.50 

5.20 

5  20 

5.20 

5.65 

1912 

5  20 

5.40 

6.00 

6  40 

5.70 

5  50 

5  50 

5.90 

5.50 

5.60 

5.70 

6.30 

5.72 

1913 

6.30 

6  50 

6  70 

6  50 

6.60 

6.60 

6.30 

6.70 

6.40 

6.50 

6.80 

6  50 

6.53 

1914 

6.70 

6.90 

6.80 

6.80 

6.60 

6.60 

6.50 

6.40 

6.60 

6.50 

6.40 

6.60 

6  60 

1915 

6.40 

6.40 

6.30 

6  40 

6  00 

6.00 

6  10 

6  10 

5.90 

5.80 

5.90 

6.00 

6  09 

1916 

6  00 

6  10 

6.30 

6  80 

6  40 

6.40 

6.40 

620 

610 

6.00 

6.10 

6.70 

6  23 

1917 

7.20 

7.50 

8.10 

8.50 

8.40 

7.90 

8.30 

7.70 

8.30 

8.00 

8.20 

7.90 

8  02 

1918 

8.30 

8.80 

9.30 

9.80 

10  10 

9.50 

9.40 

9  20 

9.00 

9.10 

9  10 

9  50 

929 

1919 

10.00 

10.90 

10.90 

10.80 

11.05 

9  70 

9.70 

9 .  30 

9.00 

9.00 

8.90 

9.40 

9.85 

1920 

10.10 

10.70 

10.45 

10.20 

9.90 

8.70 

8.80 

8.80 

8.30 

8.30 

8.30 

8.30 

9.16 

1921 

8.30 

8.10 

7  50 

7.20 

6.70 

6.50 

6.00 

5.90 

5.50 

5.50 

5.50 

5.50 

6.43 

1922 

5.80 

6.20 

6.70 

6.90 

7.00 

6.50 

6.20 

6.20 

6.20 

6.20 

6.30 

6.40 

6.39 

1923 

7.10 

6  60 

6.40 

6.30 

6  10 

6.00 

5.70 

6.00 

5.90 

6.10 

6.10 

6.10 

6.16 

9124 

6.60 

7.00 

7.50 

7.10 

6.90 

6.50 

6.20 

6.00 

6  00 

5.90 

5.80 

6.40 

6.46 

1925 

6.30 

6.80 

6.70 

7.20 

7.10 

7.50 

6.90 

6.50 

6.70 

6.50 

6.60 

6.80 

6.82 

1926 

7.40 

7.30 

7.30 

7.30 

7.20 

6.50 

6.50 

6.60 

6.70 

6.90 

6.70 

7.00 

6.91 

1927 

7.20 

7.50 

7.40 

7.50 

7.30 

7.20 

6.90 

7.30 

7.30 

7.70 

7.60 

8.70 

7.53 

1928 

9.80 

9.50 

9.80 

9.50 

9.20 

9.10 

9.00 

9  30 

10.30 

10.20 

*  Weighted  average  computed  by  authors  with  the  following  weights— Jan.  7,  Feb.  6,  Mar.  7,  Apr.  8, 
May  9,  June  10,  July  11,  Aug.  10,  Sept.  9,  Oct.  8,  Nov.  7,  Dec.  8. 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Prices  of  farm  products  received  by 
producers;  4,  Mountain  and  Pacific  states.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat.  Bui.  17:  144.  1927.  1926-1928,  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets. 


It  is  extremely  difficult  to  gauge  accurately  the  purchasing  power 
of  beef  cattle  in  terms  of  all  commodities.  The  base  period  (1910- 
1914)  which  is  used  in  the  rough  approximation  made  in  this  pub- 
lication was  a  period  of  rising  prices  for  beef  cattle  in  both  the  state 
and  nation,  but  this  was  not  the  case  with  all  commodities.  Further- 
more, the  prices  received  during  the  base  period  1910-1914  were  high 
in  California  compared  with  those  of  the  nation,  which  makes  the 
present  purchasing  power  appear  low  for  this  state.  With  this  and 
other  inaccuracies  in  mind,  a  comparison  has  been  made  between  beef 


74 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


prices  and  those  for  commodities  in  general.  Although  general  whole- 
sale prices  rose  rapidly  during  the  war  period,  beginning  in  1916  beef 
prices  began  to  lag.  This  was  especially  noticeable  in  California 
where  the  general  level  of  beef  prices  was  relatively  low. 


TABLE  34 

Belative  Prices   (Beceived  by  Producers)   and  Belative  Purchasing  Power 

of  Beef  Cattle,  United  States  and  California,  1910-1928 


All- 
commodity 
index 

United  States 

California 

Year 

Relative 
price 

Relative 

purchasing 

power 

Relative 
price 

Relative 

purchasing 

power 

1 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913  .    . 

2 
102.7 

94.7 
100.9 
101.8 

99.9 
102.6 
129.0 
180.3 
197.7 
210  1 
230.2 
149.6 
151  5 
156.5 
152.4 
162.0 
154.0 
149.0 
149.0 
149.0 
149.0 
151.0 
153.0 
151.0 
152.0 
153.0 
155.0 

3 
88.6 
83.1 
102.2 
110.1 
116.2 
111.9 
120.7 
152  1 
176.4 
179.3 
156.2 
101.5 
101.1 
103.7 
104.1 
116.6 
120.1 
135.8 
157.9 
162.3 
164.0 
166.0 
169.2 
169.4 
171.1 
177.0 
185.4 

4 
86.3 
87.8 
101.3 
108.2 
116.3 
109.1 
93.6 
84.4 
89.2 
85.3 
67.9 
67.8 
66.7 
66.3 
68.3 
72.0 
78.0 
91.1 
106.0 
108.9 
110  1 
109.9 
110.6 
112.2 
122.6 
115.7 
119.6 

5 
93.4 
93.8 
94.9 
108.4 
109.5 
101.1 
103.4 
133.1 
154.2 
163.5 
152.0 
106.7 
106.0 
102.2 
107.2 
113.2 
114.7 
125.0 
162.6 
157.7 
162.6 
157.7 
152.7 
151.0 
149.4 
154.3 
170.9 

6 

91.0 
99.0 
94.1 
106.5 

1914 

109.6 

1915 

98.5 

1916 

80.1 

1917 

73.8 

1918 

78.0 

1919 

77.8 

1920 

66.0 

1921 

71.3 

1922 

70.0 

1923 

65.3 

1924 

70.3 

1925 

69.9 

1926  

74.5 

1927  

83.9 

1928 — January  

109.1 

105.8 

109.1 

104.4 

99.8 

100.0 

July 

98.3 

100.8 

September 

110.3 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  2,  Bur.  Labor  Statistics,  All-commodity  index,  1910-14  =  100. 
Col.  3,  table  32,  1910-14  =  100. 
Col.  4,  col.  3  divided  by  col.  2. 
Col.  5,  table  33.   1910-14  =  100. 
Col.  6,  col.  5  divided  by  col.  2. 

Since  the  depression  year  of  1920  there  has  been  a  fairly  close 
general  agreement  between  the  purchasing  power  of  beef  cattle  in 
the  United  States  and  in  this  state.  Compared  with  prices  of 
commodities  in  general  there  has  been  a  decided  improvement  in 
beef-cattle  prices,  especially  during  the  latter  part  of  1927.     The 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  75 

purchasing  power  during  1927,  however,  did  not  give  an  indication  of 
being  high.  Compared  with  commodities  in  general  it  would  appear 
that  the  price  was  roughly  normal  during  the  latter  part  of  the  year. 
The  first  ten  months  of  1928  give  indications  that  the  purchasing 
power  for  the  year  will  be  over  100  per  cent.  With  the  compara- 
tively lean  years  which  the  industry  has  experienced  since  1920, 
many  stockmen  have  undoubtedly  primed  expenses  severely.  Prices 
appear  to  them  to  have  been  high  in  1927,  and  herein  lies  a  danger 
that  cattlemen  may  increase  their  herds  too  rapidly.  While  indica- 
tions point  to  a  comparatively  favorable  situation  during  the  next 
few  years,  cattlemen  have  it  within  their  power  to  prolong  the 
situation  provided  new  additions  to  herds  are  made  slowly. 

A  study  of  the  average  wholesale  prices  received  for  beef  cattle 
at  Chicago  since  1910  evidences  the  same  general  trend  as  farm  prices. 
Until  1917  the  agreement  between  the  two  series  of  general  farm 
prices  in  the  United  States  and  Chicago  prices  was  striking.  Since 
the  latter  date  the  farm  series  has  been  relatively  lower  although 
during  the  past  two  years  there  has  been  a  tendency  for  a  closer 
agreement.  Throughout  this  discussion  unit  prices  are  used.  These 
together  with  purchasing  power  do  not  give  a  true  picture  of  the 
industry,  because  volume  of  production  is  left  out  of  account. 

Owing  to  the  wide  range  of  prices  for  the  lower  grades,  an  average 
means  little  or  nothing.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  a  series  of  data 
showing  the  average  prices  of  cutters  and  canners  on  the  Chicago 
market  since  1910  indicates  that  the  prices  for  this  type  of  stuff  have 
been  relatively  lower  since  1918  than  for  any  of  the  higher  grades 
of  animals. 

Quotations  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. — The  Bureau 
of  Agricultural  Economics  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture publishes  daily  quotations  on  the  various  grades  of  livestock 
and  upon  the  weights  within  these  grades.  A  range  of  price  is  quoted, 
and  in  calculations  in  this  bulletin  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  high 
and  low  quotations  of  the  range  is  used  unless  a  notation  is  made  to 
the  contrary.  This  type  of  work  is  open  to  the  criticism  that  the 
cattle  within  the  grade  may  change  in  quality  from  day  to  day,  from 
month  to  month,  and  from  season  to  season.  Since  there  is  difficulty 
in  quoting  upon  a  uniform  product,  calculations  should  be  viewed 
as  a  general  approximation  of  what  really  happens.  Several  grades 
are  quoted  on  each  of  the  larger  markets.36  On  the  Pacific  Coast  the 
quotations  for  the  higher  grades  and  larger  steers  are  usually  lacking. 

36  Gibbons,  C.  E.  Market  classes  and  grades  of  livestock.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Bui.  1360:  1-47.     1926. 


76 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


«*"       «< 

,2 

#— »r 

itt'' 

... 

/ 

*•• 

k    .„. 

h 

r^- 

<0 

V 

*> 

^^ 

<? 

CD 

•*1»»^ 

<  \ 

\   \ 

rV 

«> 

,  — "■  ,.• 

u 

*N  "J.1- 

HU: 

S 

..'1 

M 

K> 

£ 

< 

§ 

1 

4 

Z"^? 

s- — , 

v, 

•• 

\ 

1 
> 

t3  aifd  « 

1  5  «  s 

CH    O    ►» 

t>     O     5_,  ,— i* 

en 

2         oo  "C 

s 

«1  s  2 

0> 

eS    2    c3    c3 

s 

nd  San  Fi 
hin  the  g 
at  San  Fr 
there  app 

<k 

58  -"3 
E*  o  ?° 

55 

on  one  liar 

variation 

of  the  ran 

st  two  ye 

^ 

.2  «H  A  J}    g 

c 

8 

*s 

.a  § "  J  ^ 

& 

.2  rt  &P  ? 

■s « .2  .a 

pq 

lor*^ 

.4 

S   0)   O)   ca   © 

JO 

0} 

•H 

o 

holesale 
it  to  m 
the  ab 
ago  are 
Middle 

a 

*s 

o 

& 

IB 

£  ^  ©  +j  fl 

ti 

£           r^    Oi-H 

CM 

-  s  „-,  a  -a 

sa 

0) 

fl  ©  £  d  fc 
o  u  h  fi  ft 

<u 

>N 

05    -4-i     CO 

•r1   tt        03  rt 

h     m     m    r-     D 
&   02     O             fe 

o 

-fl      °      ^      rH 

•h 
■ 
o 

So  cr^.2 

0 

0.1 

An  ex£ 
n  the 
which 
nd  the 
orrelat 

OS 

1      O           ^    © 

s 

a 

o 
o 

&JD  fl    «3    ^ 
£  <1  1  <<    rt 

c3 

0 

> 

«.s  »  S 

hi   cdhl^ 

BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  77 

Since  the  latter  part  of  1922  the  quotation  on  "  medium  steers  1100 
pounds  down"  has  been  most  consistently  published,  although  slight 
changes  in  this  classification  have  been  made.  San  Francisco  and  Los 
Angeles  prices  have  steadily  increased  since  1922,  the  most  pro- 
nounced improvement  coming  about  in  1927  (fig.  22). 

Comparisons  between  prices  on  the  San  Francisco  and  the  Los 
Angeles  markets  with  those  on  the  Chicago  market  are  difficult  to 
make.  It  is  probable  that  the  Chicago  price  is  for  a  higher  grade 
of  animal.  The  spread  between  the  high  and  low  price  at  Chicago 
is  such  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  mean  of  these  extremes  can 
be  used  in  any  other  way  than  to  indicate  very  general  trends.  There 
is  a  greater  correlation  between  the  "low"  of  the  Chicago  quotation 
and  the  "high"  of  the  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  than  between 
the  average  price  quotations  in  the  two  localities  (fig.  22). 

Cattle  and  the  dressed  products  as  well  are  bought  at  Chicago 
and  other  large  midwestern  and  eastern  markets  more  nearly  on  the 
basis  of  grade  than  is  the  case  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  particularly  until 
very  recently.  The  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  through  Mr. 
C.  V.  Whalin,  its  representative,  states,  "There  are  two  important 
factors  that  operate  to  cause  a  relatively  narrow  spread  between  the 
low  and  high  ends  of  the  price  quotations  on  medium  grade  steers 
on  Pacific  Coast  markets  as  compared  with  Chicago.  These  are  (1) 
a  much  wider  spread  in  the  market  value  of  beef  by  grade  and  by 
class  in  eastern  territory  than  on  the  Pacific  Coast — a  spread  that  is 
logically  reflected  by  hoof  prices,  and  (2)  a  greater  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  trade  in  the  midwest  and  east  to  buy  cattle  more  nearly 
on  the  judged  merit  of  individual  lots  than  is  the  case  in  the  far  west. 
In  other  words,  there  is  less  tendency  to  regard  a  steer  as  a  steer,  a 
cow  as  a  cow,  either  on  foot  or  in  the  carcass,  at  the  more  eastern 
market  centers  than  in  western  areas."37 

This  fine  distinction  between  values  within  grades  plus  varying 
preferences  for  one  weight  selection  over  another  accounts  for  price 
spreads  of  as  much  as  $3.00  or  more  per  hundredweight  between  the 
minimum  and  maximum  quotations  on  a  given  grade  of  beef  steers  on 
the  Chicago  market. 

Comparison  of  Beef  and  Veal  Prices. — Since  1920,  the  margin 
between  prices  for  veal  and  beef  have  generally  been  far  greater  than 
before  the  war  (fig.  23).  The  tendency  for  this  margin  to  widen  has 
played  a  part  in  the  increasing  number  of  calves  which  have  been 

37  Letter  from  C.  V.  Whalin,  in  charge,  Marketing  Livestock,  Meats,  and  Wool 
Division  of  the  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  to  Edwin  C.  Voorhies,  January 
26,  1928. 


78 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


— 

1 

* 

< 
< 

""* 

» 

;~ 

* 

< 

i. 

-S 

> 

< 

S 

' 

is 

► 

*  1 

*» 

1 

< 

2 

§ 

"*». 

b 

^ 

-* — 1 

x — 

^2j 

-JP- 

_JU 

5^ 

> 

•sis 

s 

* 

1 
* 

ti 

/ 

4 

> 

< 

^^ 

1 

1 

M 

^ 
^ 

p 

CT 

jr 

1 

0 

^3? 

8° 
05 

}-t    o> 

o  & 

S 

^3 

k 

So 

Oj 

^   bfi 

03 

<o 

^ 

fl    rCj 

«N 

10 

^    O 

^ 

3-s 

2  1 

sh 

beg 

^ 

g.s 

ro 

£§ 

oo 

g§.s 

r£  fl 

OJ 

03     O 

CVJ 

t>  •  Th 

* 

ctf    oS 

OO 

53 

'oS    P! 

O)  •'H 

>    0) 

OJ    r-l 

cd    !>-» 

0) 

!»N1 

rt   rf 

«    Pi 

«H.S 

CO 

$H 

ft 

fH       O 

o   ^ 

k 

<H     p, 

ri 

OS 

^0 
5*1 

03     P-l 

.2  p» 

if) 

P^<H 

>>i 

Pi    as 

<U    o 

a>    k 

>*• 

£  a 

**• 

co 

^ 

h              CO 

&   .  3 

as  "^ 

EH  „, 

I    ^  a> 

~  7= 

►>. 

t<l 

SgfS 

0> 

bJD'H    ^ 

s 

*•< 

■d* 

> 

Pi  «H 

as   o 

BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


79 


marketed.  Prices  for  veal  calves  in  California  have  consistently 
shown  a  higher  purchasing  power  than  those  for  beef  animals  since 
1919.  There  is  no  foundation  for  believing  that  the  veal  price  will 
continue  to  draw  away  from  the  beef  price.  With  an  increase  in 
dairying  it  is  highly  probable  that  there  will  be  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  veal  calves  marketed. 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Prices  of  "Beef  Steers,  1100  Pounds  Down,  Medium 

Grade,  at  Chicago,"  San  Francisco,  and  Los  Angeles,  1922-1927 

Average  month  =  100. 

Indices  of  Seaoonal  Variation   


"^^^\: 

>an  Franc 

ISCO 

\ 
\ 
\ 

\ 

Chicago 
PA 

/ 

r 

,     N— ^ 

l\ 

,-.«"-*" 

rf*5>- 

^-^'^.^ 

Los  Ana 

?/es  2" 

Apr 


May 


'July 


™9 


Sept. 


Fig.  24. — The  data  used  are  the  low  of  the  range  of  quotations.  A  high 
degree  of  correlation  exists  between  the  seasonal  variation  at  San  Francisco  and 
Los  Angeles.  From  this  chart  indications  are  that  quotations  at  Chicago  for 
medium  steers  are  relatively  higher  from  May  to  June,  at  which  time  there  is 
often  a  small  surplus  on  the  California  market.  The  period  of  time  on  which  the 
data  are  based  is  far  too  short  for  the  formulation  of  definite  conclusions. 

(Data  from  table  37.) 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Beef  Cattle  Prices. — Variations  in  quotation 
grades  and  the  lack  of  a  comparable  series  of  prices  over  a  sufficiently 
long  period  of  time  make  it  extremely  difficult  to  analyze  the  seasonal 
variations  in  the  wholesale  prices  of  beef  animals.  The  average 
(arithmetic  mean)  of  the  quotations  for  "medium  steers  1100  pounds 
down,"  has  been  used  for  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  in  table  37. 
Slight  changes  have  been  made  in  the  classification  by  grade,  but  the 
data  in  tables  35  and  36  are  such  that  they  cover  the  same  general 
classification  throughout.  While  these  data  are  available  since  1922, 
quotations  at  times  have  not  represented  the  range  of  quality  within 
the  class  itself.  This  is  particularly  true  during  the  summer  season, 
at  which  time  there  are  perhaps  relatively  more  poor  animals  on  the 
San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  markets  than  at  other  times  during 
the  year. 


80 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  35 

Average  Monthly  Prices  of  Medium  and  Common  Grade  Steers  at 

San  Francisco,  1922-1928 

(Dollars  per  hundred  pounds  live  weight.) 


Year 


Jan.       Feb.      Mar.      Apr.       May      June      July      Aug.      Sept.      Oct.      Nov.      Dec. 


Medium 


1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 
1927 
1928 


7.20 

7.97 
7.19 
8.13 
8.00 
10.95 


8.13 
7.38 


8.00 
11.00 


8.08 
7.74 
8.30 
8.28 
10.94 


6.75 

7.97 
8.63 
7.97 
8.50 
10.37 


6.75 
7.41 


7.81 
8.00 

9.96 


6.50 
7.00 
8.08 
7.43 

7.84 
9.95 


6.50 
7.00 
7.14 
7.25 
7.97 
10.17 


6.50 
7.00 
7.04 
7.45 
8.10 
10.81 


6.50 
7.00 
7.38 
7.60 
8.59 
11.24 


7.25 
6.75 
7.00 
7.50 
7.63 
8.63 
11.12 


7.25 
6.75 
7.00 
7.41 
7.78 
9.21 


7.25 
7.18 
7.00 
7.61 
8.00 
9.97 


Common 


1922 

6.35 

6.38 

6.38 

6.34 

1923 

6.40 

6.18 

6.00 

5.60 

5.50 

5.50 

5.50 

5.50 

5.50 

5.50 

5.69 

5.75 

1924 

6.22 

6.13 

6  13 

6.13 

6.00 

6  00 

5  75 

5.75 

5.75 

5  75 

5.50 

5.55 

1925 

5  94 

6.13 

6.49 

7.22 

7.33 

7.13 

6  31 

6.02 

6.19 

6  25 

6.25 

6  25 

1926 

6.50 

6.75 

6.75 

6.56 

6.50 

6.33 

6.25 

6.35 

6.50 

6.63 

6.65 

6.75 

1927 

6.75 

6.75 

6.91 

7.13 

7.00 

6.75 

6.75 

6.83 

7.44 

7.68 

7.94 

7.75 

1928 

8.55 

9.00 

9.00 

8.77 

8.58 

8.58 

8.79 

9.31 

9.74 

9.69 

Note.— Quotations  are  arithmetic  averages  of  the  Monday  quotations  published  during  each  month. 

Quotations— Sept.  1922-Oct.  1923  on  "Medium  and  Common  Beef  Steers;"  Nov.  1923-June  1927  on 
"Medium  and  Common  Beef  Steers,  1,100  pounds  down;"  July  1927  on  "Medium  and  Common  Beef 
Steers,  800  pounds  up." 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Daily  livestock  market  summary.  Mimeographed 
daily  report,  published  by  the  San  Francisco  Office,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 


TABLE  36 

Average  Monthly  Prices  or  Medium  and  Common  Grade  Steers  at 

Los  Angeles,  1922-1928 

(Dollars  per  hundred  pounds  live  weight.) 


Year 


Jan.       Feb 


Mar. 


Apr.       May      June      July      Aug.      Sept.      Oct.    |  Nov.      Dec 


Medium 


"1922 

7.25 

7.25 

7.28 

7.22 

1923 

7.16 

6.69 

7.07- 

7.28 

6.70 

6.73 

6.82 

6.88 

7.07 

6.83 

7  26 

7.53 

1924 

7.66 

7.71 

7.94 

7.88 

7.09 

6.92 

7.11 

6.85 

7.31 

7.43 

7.10 

6.98 

1925 

6.13 

7.01 

7.71 

8.30 

7.94 

7.56 

7.28 

7.38 

7.74 

7.82 

7.89: 

8  13 

-.   1926 

.8.60 

8.63 

8.15 

7.95 

7.60 

7.39 

7.31 

7.43 

7.39 

7.63 

7.73 

8.17 

1927 

.8.14 

8  06 

8.31 

8.23 

8.23 

811 

7.89 

8.51 

8.68 

8.86 

9.28 

10.06 

-  1928 

11  25 

11.58 

11.25 

10  51 

10  27 

10  25 

10  78 

11.46 

11.68 

11.65 

Common 


1922 
1923 

5.95 

5.69 

5.94 

6.25 

5.86 

5.97 

"  1924  ' 

6.33 

6.47 

660 

6.69 

5.83 

5.70 

1925 

5.47 

5.33 

6.00 

6.66 

6.25 

6.01 

1926 

7.04 

7.07 

6.61 

6.50 

6.22 

6.02 

1927 

6.69 

6.53 

6.84 

7.15 

6.98 

6.84 

1928   . 

9.95 

9.73 

9.41 

8.75 

8.67 

8.78 

6.07 
5.38 
5.53 
5.97 
6.75 
9.15 


6.13 
5.41 
5.50 
6.13 
7.44 
9.76 


6.38 
6.22 
5.46 
6.04 
6.08 
7.45 


6.38 
600 
5.58 
5.75 
6.29 
7.61 
9.81 


6.35 
6.19 
5.32 
5.85 
6.33 
7.90 


5  35 

6  13 
5  25 

6.25 


Note. — Quotations  are  arithmetic  averages  of  the  Monday  quotations  published  during  each  month. 

Quotations— Sept.  1922-Oct.  1923  on  "Medium  and  Common  Beef  Steers;"  Nov.  1923-June  1927  on 
"Medium  and  Common  Beef  Steers,  1,100  pounds  down;"  July  1927  on  "Medium  and  Common  Beef 
Steers,  800  pounds  up." 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Daily  livestock  market  summary.  Mimeographed 
daily  report,  published  by  the  Los  Angeles  Office,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF   CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


81 


While  the  seasonal  variation  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  five  years 
only,  the  data  for  the  two  cities  check  fairly  closely  and  a  comparison 
with  the  actual  prices  indicates  that  the  indices  of  seasonal  variation 
as  calculated  are  approximately  correct.  The  five  months  beginning 
in  December  have  been  above  normal  at  both  cities.  In  San  Francisco, 
May  also  shows  an  above-normal  index.  June,  July,  and  August  show 
lower  indices  than  other  months  of  the  year.  This  sag  is  caused  in 
part  by  differences  in  the  quality  of  cattle.  This  situation  is  an  illus- 
tration of  the  difficulties  involved  in  analyzing  changes  in  the  prices 
of  products  not  highly  uniform  in  character. 

A  study  of  the  prices  of  "medium-grade  steers  1100  pounds  down" 
at  Chicago  does  not  reveal  a  well-defined  seasonal  variation.  A  close 
examination  of  the  data  reveals  the  fact  that  the  range  between  the 
high  and  low  of  the  Chicago  quotations  for  mediums  is  such  that  the 
arithmetic  mean  can  hardly  be  termed  an  average  price.  In  order 
that  data  for  the  Pacific  Coast  and  Chicago  may  be  made  more  nearly 
comparable,  seasonal  variation  for  San  Francisco,  Los  Angeles,  and 
Chicago  have  been  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  low  of  the  quotation 
range  for  "medium  steers  1100  pounds  down"  (cols.  3,  5,  .and  6, 
table  37). 

TABLE  37 

Indices  of  Seasonal  Variation  in  Prices  of  Medium  and  Common  Grade 

Steers  at  San  Francisco,  Los  Angeles,  and  Chicago,  1922-1927 


Medium  grade 

Common  grade 

Month 

San  Francisco 

Los  Angeles 

Chicago 

San 
Fran- 
cisco 

Los 
Angeles 

Average 
quotations 

Low  of 
quotations 

Average 
quotations 

Low  of 
quotations 

Low  of 

quotations 

Chicago 

1 

2 

101.6 

103.6 

103.0 

103.4 

101.3 

96.3 

96.3 

96  3 

98.3 

99.1 

99  1 

101.7 

3 

103.6 

103.5 

103.3 

104  1 

102.2 

96.4 

96  3 

96  1 

96.9 

98.5 

93  3 

100  8 

4 
101.9 
102.0 
104.9 
103.8 
99  0 
96.3 

95  0 

96  1 
99  4 
99.2 
99.8 

102.6 

5 

103.9 
101.8 
104  5 
107.3 
99  1 
95.4 
93  8 

96  0 

97  0 
97.8 
99.5 

103.7 

6 
104.3 
102.7 

105  1 
104  5 

106  1 
99.9 

101.0 
91  6 
94  1 
96  3 
94  2 

100  3 

7 

103  3 

103.1 

103.0 

102.2 

100  8 

98  1 

96  7 

96  6 

98,7 

99.0 

98.9 

99.6 

8 
101.7 

99.1 
103.3 
107.8 
101.0 
98.5 
97.1 
97.8 
98.6 
98.4 
98.9 
97.8 

9 
99  1 

February 

March., 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September.  ..:.... 

October" 

November 

December 

99.4 
106.4 
.109.5 
112.2 
107.5 
102  0 

94  1 
92.3 
92.7 
89.4 

95  4 

Cols.  2,  4,  7,  8,  and  9,  based  upon  average  of  high  and  low  quotations  for  medium  steers.  Cols.  3,  5,  6 
based  upon  low  of  quotations  for  medium  steers. 

Sources  of  data:  Computations  by  authors  based  upon  daily  quotations  published  in  the  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.  Daily  Livestock  Market  Summary.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  offices  at  San  Francisco,  Los  Angeles,  and 
Chicago. 

The  median  link  relative  method  has  been  used  in  computing  the  seasonal  variation.  The  average 
monthly  index  =  100. 


82 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  data  for  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  check  rather  closely  with 
the  indices  calculated  on  the  average  quotation  (cols.  2  and  4,  table 
37).  Table  37  shows  rather  clearly  that  the  break  at  Chicago  in  the 
medium  grade  has  come  later  than  on  the  Los  Angeles  and  San  Fran- 
cisco markets.  With  the  limited  data  on  hand  it  would  appear  that 
steers  of  this  type  destined  for  eastern  markets  would  fare  better  in 
price  if  shipped  before  the  fall  months.  Data  are  so  limited  that  a 
hard  and  fast  rule  should  not  be  drawn. 


TABLE  38 
Belative  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Beef  Cattle  at  Chicago',  1910-1927 


Native  beef  steers, 
all  weights 

Beef  steers, 
1200-1500  pounds 

Canners  and 
cutters 

Stockers  and 
feeders 

Fat  cows  and 
heifers 

Year 

Rela- 
tive 

Relative 

Pur- 
chasing 

Rela- 
tive 

Relative 

Pur- 
chasing 

Rela- 
tive 

Relative 

Pur- 
chasing 

Rela- 
tive 

Relative 

Pur- 
chasing 

Rela- 
tive 

Relative 

Pur- 
chasing 

price 

power 

price 

power 

price 

power 

price 

power 

price 

power 

/ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

1910 

89.8 

87.4 

90.6 

88.2 

85.2 

83.0 

81.7 

79.6 

85.7 

83.4 

1911 

84  5 

89.2 

84.9 

89.7 

78.3 

82.7 

80.0 

84.5 

81.0 

85.5 

1912 

102.4 

101.5 

106  5 

105.6 

93.4 

92.6 

96.0 

95.1 

97.8 

96.9 

1913 

109.0 

107.1 

105.8 

103.9 

116.8 

114.7 

118.7 

116.6 

113.6 

111.6 

1914 

114.3 

114  4 

112.2 

112  3 

126.4 

126.5 

123.7 

123.8 

122.0 

122.1 

1915 

111  0 
125.5 

108.2 

97.3 

110.9 

125.5 

108.1 
97.3 

116.8 
131.9 

113.8 
102.2 

113.6 
125.7 

110.7 

1916 

121.2 

94.0 

97.4 

1917 

153.2 

85.0 

159.1 

88.2 

171.7 

95.2 

141.4 

78.4 

153.6 

85.2 

1918 

193.5 

97.9 

196.4 

99.3 

199.2 

100.8 

172.6 

87.3 

176.9 

89.5 

1919 

204  8 

97.5 

205.3 

97.7 

177.2 

84.3 

182.7 

87.0 

186.2 

88.6 

1920 

175.7 

76.3 

181.9 

79.1 

138.7 

60.3 

150.7 

65.5 

159.2 

69.2 

1921 

108.3 

72.4 

106.5 

71.2 

79.7 

53.3 

108.6 

72.6 

100  6 

67.2 

1922 

118.9 

78.5 

120.4 

79.5 

86.5 

57.1 

112.0 

73.9 

106.1 

70.0 

1923 

126.2 

80.6 

126.1 

80.6 

85.2 

54.4 

110.3 

70  5 

110.8 

70.8 

1924 

126.8 

83.2 

123.6 

81.1 

82.4 

54  1 

106.9 

70.1 

106.1 

69.6 

1925 

139.4 

87.1 

138.2 

86.4 

92.0 

57.5 

114  5 

71.6 

117.3 

73.3. 

1926 

128.1 

83.2 

123.6 

80  3 

115  4 

74.9 

124.6 

80.9 

125.7 

81.6 

1927 

154.6 

103.8 

160.3 

107.6 

138.7 

93.1 

146.3 

98.2 

147  1 

98.7 

Source  of  data :  Actual  prices  upon  which  relatives  in  cols.  2,4,6,  and  8  are  calculated  are  from  Chicago 
Daily  Drovers  Journal.  The  yearly  prices  are  not  weighted.  Drovers  Journal  Yearbook  of  Figures  1927: 
1-109.  1928.  Base  1910-1914  =  100.  Cols.  3,  5,  7,  9,  11— relatives  in  cols.  2,  4,  6,  8,  and  10  divided  by  all- 
commodity  index.  Base  1910-1914  =  100. 


Studies  made  by  Hopkins38  on  the  seasonal  variation  in  the  prices 
of  1200  to  1500  pound  steers  revealed  a  low  point  in  general  in  Feb- 
ruary followed  by  rapidly  rising  prices  until  August  and  September, 
after  which  a  downward  movement  sets  in  until  February.  The  move- 
ment is  explained  by  the  number  and  the  quality  of  the  cattle 
marketed.    According  to  the  same  author,  prices  of  feeder  cattle  reach 


ss  Hopkins,  John  A.,  Jr.     An  economic  study  of  the  cattle  feeding  enterprise 
in  Iowa.     Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  242:  1-46.     1927. 


BUL.461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY  83 

a  low  point  in  the  late  fall  and  winter  months  at  Chicago,  which  is 
explained  by  the  heavy  runs  of  range  cattle  during  this  season  and 
the  low  prices  prevailing  in  the  whole  cattle  market.  The  seasonal 
high  point  in  feeder  prices  is  usually  reached  in  May  on  the  Chicago 
market.  This  variation  is  confirmed  by  studies  made  by  the  authors 
in  the  seasonal  variation  of  the  prices  of  common  steers  at  Chicago 
since  1922. 

Wildest  Prices  at  Chicago. — On  account  of  the  availability  of 
long  series  of  data  on  wholesale  prices  of  livestock  at  Chicago  (table 
38)  it  has  been  possible  to  make  general  comparisons  between  grades 
of  cattle  appearing  on  that  market.  These  prices  do  not  represent 
prices  paid  to  producers;  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  latter  would 
not  be  so  favorable  as  these  wholesale  prices.  Evidence  on  this  point 
can  be  obtained  from  table  34  (p.  74).  The  New  York  State  College 
of  Agriculture39  has  pointed  out  that  the  spread  between  the  retail 
price  and  the  farm  price  has  increased  greatly  since  the  pre-war 
period  1910-1914,  which  would  indicate  a  somewhat  higher  relative 
wholesale  price  when  compared  with  the  relative  farm  price.  Table 
38  shows  distinctly  that  there  has  been  an  increasing  spread  between 
the  wholesale  prices  of  the  better  and  poorer  grades  of  cattle  at 
Chicago.  For  example,  the  purchasing  power  of  canners  and  cutters 
during  1927  was  93.1,  while  that  of  beef  steers  weighing  between  1200 
and  1500  pounds  was  107.6.  The  retail  prices  of  the  choicer  cuts 
are  reflected  in  the  wholesale  prices  of  the  better  grades  of  cattle 
(tables  38  and  42). 

Prices  of  Purebreds. — The  United  States  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture has  endeavored  to  obtain  from  a  large  and  representative  number 
of  breeders  sale  prices  (both  at  auction  and  private  treaty)  of  pure- 
bred beef  animals  in  the  United  States.  Reports  on  the  sales  of  2,914 
Aberdeen  Angus,  17,935  Hereford,  495  Red  Polled  and  9,126  Short- 
horn cattle  in  1927  gave  results  as  shown  in  table  39.  In  general, 
prices  for  beef  cattle  were  materially  higher  in  1927  than  in  the  three 
preceding  years,  but  not  so  high  as  they  were  in  1923.  The  1927 
report  showed  that  60  per  cent  of  the  purebred  beef  cattle  sales  in 
1927  were  made  in  the  north  central  states,  21  per  cent  in  the  southern 
state,  16  per  cent  in  the  mountain  and  Pacific  states  and  3  per  cent 
in  the  north  Atlantic  states. 

Prices  of  purebred  Shorthorn  cattle  sold  at  public  auction  in  the 
United   States  have  been  tabulated   by  J.   H.   Knox  of  the   Illinois 


39  Warren,  G.  F.,  and  F.  A.  Pearson.     Cost  of  distributing  food.     New  York 
State  Col.  Agr.  Farm  Economics  2(50)  :  830-836.     1928. 


84 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station.40  An  analysis  of  these  prices  gives 
indications  that  they  lag  from  1  to  2  years  after  the  price  of  the 
common  farm  cattle.  The  lag  in  the  prices  of  purebred  Shorthorn 
bulls  seems  to  be  even  greater.  This  condition  is  caused  by  the  fact 
that  prices  of  purebred  beef  animals  are  the  results  of  the  demand 
for  beef  steers.  Hence  prices  for  purebreds  generally  rise  and  fall 
later  than  those  for  steers.  From  this  study  it  would  appear  that 
changes  in  the  prices  of  purebred  Shorthorns  are  more  violent  than 
the  price  changes  of  common  beef  cattle.  The  prices  of  purebreds 
are  bid  proportionately  higher  than  the  price  of  common  beef  cattle 
when  the  latter  is  rising  as  farmers  are  encouraged  to  improve  their 
herds.  Conversely,  the  drop  in  prices  during  periods  of  overproduc- 
tion will  be  greater  as  the  farmer  demand  will  then  cease. 


TABLE  39 

Comparative  Percentages  of  Sax.es  of  the  Combined  Purebred  Beef-Cattle 
Breeds,  United  States,  1923-1927,  by  Price  Banges 


Year 

Below  $50 

$50-8250 

1250  and  above 

1923 

16.4 

77.9 

5.7 

1924 

21.7 

76.2 

2.1 

1925 

25.2 

73.1 

1.7 

1926 

11.9 

86.6 

1.5 

1927 

6  6 

89.5 

3.9 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Prices  of  purebred  cattle,  hogs,  and  sheep.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops 
and  Markets  4:  140-141.  1927;  1927  data  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Prices  of  purebred  beef  cattle,  mimeo- 
graphed report,  April  4,  1928. 


MEAT   PRICES 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  beef  cattle  prices  until  the  latter  part 
of  1927  have  been  relatively  low  since  1915  if  prices  are  referred  to 
a  1910-1915  base  and  compared  with  the  prices  of  all  commodities. 
It  will  be  of  interest  to  analyze  wholesale  and  retail  meat  prices  in 
order  to  see  if  the  relatively  low  prices  for  live  animals  have  been 
reflected  in  relatively  low  wholesale  and  retain  meat  prices.  Since 
data  are  available  for  other  classes  of  meat  than  beef,  comparisons 
may  shed  some  light  on  the  demand  for  various  meats. 


40  Ulrey,  O.     Prices  of  pure-bred   Shorthorn  cattle  and  common  beef  cattle. 
New  York  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Farm  Economics  2(43)  :  651-654.     1927. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


85 


^^g>2^S5SSSSS! 

O     CO     CO     CO     CO     CO     CO     CO     c 

O    CO    CO 

c^ 

%  Q     ' 

;    5.  5    p    ~    50    S-  E«    tototototototototo*-*-*-H-*-> 

IS,     t<j      B     <^.      -)      »|      ™    r      00~JO>Cn>*«-C0t0i-»OcO00~40sen 

p 

S>     CO     tO     H- 

9 

1  1. 

£1 

BOOOOOOO:       C 

30000000000000000 

O 

^ 

0  O 

otototototototo:       ► 

-^-H-^tOtOtOH-H-^t 

0" 
9 

P  p 

&.   to   1—   0   c. 

3   0   *-   to   :       c 

0  c»   00  s   Cl 

k    CO    to    ►-    O    CJ 

3>    4>.    O    ► 

-    00    O    CO    0    0 

IT. 

P    o 

B"<  p 

«     3 

>-•  CD   co 

1  a- 

?.    <» 

M 

5  tr 

tt 

Og   CD  OP 

O    CD    O 

M     P 

>0~lOsCnCnCnOsos:       X 

^    to    CO    c 

OtOh-*tO^J00^4tOOcOOOOOO 

3D 

P2    O 

O    B 

O     OS     CO     ► 

-"tOCncn^IOOcDCXiCOC 

Ji     O    to    OS 

^r 

•c 

i°  cl 

1     TO 

^MmOiCC^hm:        >■ 

-«OOfcOC»K-COOCOtOcOH--vltnC000503 

•-1 

5' 

re 

BOOOOOOO:        C 
otototototototo:      t 

300000000000000000 
Ol—H-l— >t—H-l—tOtOtOl— '•-'I— 'I-'h-ih-Oi— ' 

5 
5" 

z;p 

»lMOMM(0»CO:         C 

5CnCnCni(iW^O>-0    01MNIWI 

0     (O     CO 

9 

O  co 

BcOCncoto*-00:        ► 

-      H-      CO      H 

-cicocorocntoii'if.acncnMCow 

CD    £. 

* 

$    < 

"c« 

•b   B. 

W 

c*  a- 

0  S" 

»        i 

1  D. 

a-  2:       • 

»~jcnoscncnosos:       >< 

i-Mt0t0^-H-^0>^lCT>C0OOOOcO^J00 

**£ 

f«.OScctO-~10seoco:        >■ 

-ocr>oo20ooi*k^-a>^-c750^ioo50oto 

« 

OCnCn>*»-i<s»^l>-'*-:        c 

j:COCT>>*»-p-»^-Cn(»k05CnOcotOOiOcOi^O 

5" 

°    S 

3    ^ 

B"  O 

O    ->           < 

30000000:       « 

BO    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

ff 

p 

cT^        i 

otototototototo:       t 

OCOtOtOtOtOtOCOCOCOtOH-'^-> 

»  )->  I— 

0' 

cn 

CO      c*              ► 

S».CO>-«000>->>—    :        H 

iOvlOHCBCOW^MOiCeCnOC 

s's 

p  3 

H 

CD 
ft. 

EL  °        « 

3   at   Oi   O)    r 

-    ~J    O    to    :       « 

»      00      H-      t 

Ot04^00i*».COOOtOCnC0^105COO 

*• 

S    M 

^  8 

2.  ft 

CB 

ji    rf».    to    to    t 

0   to    to   to   :       1 

!».OOC7itOtOCn05000C^>-'COOOOOOO 

0 

f ' 

3    to    co    >*»■    ► 

-    *>.    O    -a    :       C 

O    C«    CO     h 

-CT,*-^_t00002>*»-00 

■d 

2, 

1—  r*    < 

5M    tn    "    ► 

'    M   cn   s    :       t 

0    *-    O    Ol    0 

CC      Z 

0 

CD 

SI  _ 

F3  0         c 

30000000;      c 
.ococococotototo:       t 

300000000000000 

Jd 
5' 

Ir1 

p 

1         < 

Bcoosoo>*-cno:      t 

»«0)0i6lCliOl0«J^*C001Cni(k 

»£       ' 

0    to    CO    h 

-    W    O    01    > 

--JOOCOlf-tOO 

C    to 

p  tr 

ft) 

P    t          < 

» 

(W    CD 

°    CO 
CD 
ft. 

J1O1-00OOSO1: 

^J^100C73^4^ICOcOOOOOOtOh—     OO 

a*  ?r 

Jl    co    to    00    ► 

-    co    ►—    *-    .;       c 

^Cni— 'COO>-'~JCnO>l— >h-'COO> 

-  0 

tJ 

«   5-       < 

B^H-H-toco*-^;      « 

D«OOOCOh--vIC»COOOtOOOcOO 

0' 

cc  5" 

CD 

•"0 

BOOOOOOO:        t 

30000000000000000 

O 

►U 

e 

w  g 

2. 

e 

C     0 

^iCi^oioobifr-w:       » 

^i^^i^HMbb)»i6biM6b'o»*3 

0 

es" 

CD 

23 

p  p 

XUCOSl^^OlU:         ► 

-*^OicOOl(>MMCOO)Cnvl 

-     CO    A 

CD    O 

TO 

•e-  0 

*  3 

0  2 

S  0 

CD 

R*l 

T  5* 

s*cO(*».os-^cn>J».to:       < 

.ooocotooocoOcc:       < 

/j*>-(*>-*>.H-H-OCnOC003t0OCOO00^J 

0 

g  s 

3>    O    O    ► 

■'ffiOlMCCMWMM^OOOHCC 

JO 

O 

CD 

os    O* 

^OO^HfflbOOOM:        c 

OSOlvlM-lNKOM^COO^CnOOl^ 

O 

ft. 

W 

5" 

CD 

§-** 

^    O 

nop  00000: 

300000000000000 

7 

CD 

O  i-»   h-   h- 

—     h-    ha    1—    ■ 

-■   to   to 

-«i—  totococototOH-i— 

hi 

S    3" 

—    CC^I^JCnCOC04-.: 

C    ^1    Cn 

2COHNQMO«>Cai^ 

-n 

h 

-J  p 

.O-^lOtOOO^l^ICO: 

3    OO    O 

0O>*»Cn^jCnCni*».t0C0 

*»•     CO 

* 

1     TO      

5  ? 

to 

H 

£. 

CD    m- 
P    O 
TO   -■ 
O  3 

^jos^^coh-i— >to: 

31^ICOOM^1MCO 

3 

9 

U 

e 

0    Cv<    a>    >*»■    CO    en    Cn    0    : 

O    Oi    K-    CO    O    h-    -vl 

_n    os    h-    ^-     CO    O 

O 

T3 

4^(OV>O0<Z>tt--<^tt^\ 

■—    CO    O    O    CO    H-    ^4 

»  co  00  to   0   0 

C 

3 

5' 

tr1 

^? 

p 

0  0 

3    O    O    O    O    O 

e 

=> 

JjJ 

CD    O 

0 

co   co 

CO    co    to    to    ►—    H~ 

EL* 

0  0 

—    0    ^1    to    CO    00 

X. 

^; 

m 

O      H- 

3S    to    >*»•    OS    O    tO 

» 

CD 

p 

pr- 

CD 

EL 

e» 

* 

OOOO 

OOOO: 

OOO 

000 

7 

tr 

5 

to   to   to   to 

Cn    to    *-    O 

j3    co    to    co    : 

^    00   a 
^i   ^1   *■ 

Cn    Cl    Cn 

O 

CD 

co 

I 

in    O    C»    Ci 

tn    CO    -«J    CO   : 

Cn    Oi    if» 

CD 

II 

B- 

S 
•d 

CD 

to   to   to   to 

to   to    to   to   : 

tO      tO      H- 

O 

-^     4-     CO     tO 

^•0-4 

^1    Os    tn    to    O    O 
tis>    os    h-    en    Cn    0 

9 

i 

B 

l*^    00    to    0 

O    CO    *»    CO    : 

to   ►-  a> 

ai   x  en  o> 

s 

•d 
3. 

JO 

^  en  ce  00 

OO^-O: 

co  to  en 

CO     O     CO     OS 

- :      z      —     —     :        j: 

to 

O 

0 

g 

HrJ  W 

o  a 

p  tr1 

5  B 


o 

O  > 


<J 

H 

'D 

CO 

*d 

r> 

^ 

Fa 

0 

!2j 

M 

a 

to 

^ 

t-J 

OS 

Kj 

II 

§ 

H 

N 

O 

O 

► 

Vw' 

a 

0 

0 

~ 

a 

> 

S3 

O 

86 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Wholesale  Prices  at  Chicago  and  New  York. — Series  of  data  on 
wholesale  prices  of  meat  are  available,  unfortunately,  for  only  a 
limited  number  of  localities.  None  of  the  places  listed  are  on  the 
Pacific  Coast,  but  over  long  periods  of  time  prices  for  commodities, 
such  as  meat,  which  are  produced  in  many  sections  of  the  country 
and  which  can  be  transported  easily,  do  not  move  very  far  out  of 
line  in  the  different  localities.  Table  40  indicates  clearly  that  carcass 
prices  at  Chicago  and  native  side  prices  at  New  York  have  been 
relatively  low — whether  these  are  compared  with  the  prices  of  general 
commodities  or  with  the  prices  of  other  meats.  It  is  unfortunate  that 
the  data  in  table  40  had  to  be  compared  to  a  1913  base.  Earlier  data 
are  not  completely  available.  In  the  case  of  the  two  series  above 
mentioned  the  relative  prices  would  still  be  relatively  low  if  the  base 
1910-1914  had  been  used.  It  is  also  of  importance  to  note  that  from 
1917  to  1927  the  wholesale  prices  of  beef  were  relatively  lower  than 
those  for  lamb,  pork,  and  veal.  Only  since  the  latter  part  of  1927 
have  the  relative  prices  of  wholesale  beef  approached  those  of  other 
meats. 

TABLE  41 

Index  Numbers  Showing  Trend  in  the  Retail  Cost  of  Food  in  the 

United  States,  1890-1927 

(Average  for  year  1913  =  100.) 


Year 

Index 
number 

Year 

Index 
number 

Year 

Index 
number 

Year 

Index 
number 

1890 

69.6 
70.6 
69  3 
71  0 
67.8 
66.5 
64.9 
65.4 
67  1 
67.7 
68.7 

1901 

1902 

71  5 

75  4 
75.0 
76.0 

76  4 
78.7 
82  0 
84  3 
88.7 
93.0 
92.0 

1912 

97.6 
100  0 
102.4 
101.3 
113.7 
146.4 
168.3 
185.9 
203.4 
153.3 
141  6 

1923 

146.2 

1891 

1913 

1924 

145.9 

1892 

1903 

1904 

1914 

1925 

157.4 

1893 

1915 

1916 

1926 

1927 

160.6 

1894 

1905 

155.4 

1895 

1906 

1917 

1928— January 

155.1 

1896 

1907 

1918 

February 

March 

151.6 

1897 

1908 

1919 

151.4 

1898 

1909 

1920 

April 

May 

152.1 

1899 

1910 

1921 

153.8 

1900 

1911 

1922 

June 

152.6 

July 

152.8 

Sources  of  data:  1890-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Labor,  Retail  Prices.  1890-1925,  Bur.  Labor  Stat.  Bui.  418:  6. 
1926,  ibid.  Bui.  445:  6.  1927.  1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Labor,  Bur.  Labor  Statistics.  Indexes  of  retail  prices 
of  food  in  the  United  States.   Monthly  Labor  Review  27  (1) :  151.   1928. 


Retail  Prices  in  the  United  States  and  California. — Compared  with 
the  relative  retail  prices  of  other  meats  those  for  the  various  cuts  of 
beef  have  been  low  both  (until  the  latter  part  of  1927)  in  the  United 
States    (table  42)    and  on  the   San  Francisco    (table  43)    and  Los 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  87 

Angeles  (table  44)  markets.  It  is  unfortunate  that  data  are  not  avail- 
able for  the  period  before  1913,  since  there  is  no  especial  reason  for 
believing  that  1913  was  a  normal  year  other  than  the  fact  that  it  was 
the  year  before  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War.  If  any  one  or 
all  of  the  four  years  1913-1916  had  been  taken  as  a  base,  however, 
the  same  general  conclusions  might  have  been  drawn.  With  the  out- 
break of  the  war  and  since  that  time  retail  prices  of  the  various  cuts 
of  beef  in  the  country  have  failed  to  reach  the  relative  position  which 
other  classes  of  meat  have  attained.  Statements  are  often  heard  that 
meat  is  high  in  price  as  compared  with  the  pre-war  period.  For  beef 
this  has  not  been  true.  From  1922  until  1927  sirloin  stead  has  kept 
about  the  same  relative  level  as  the  general  prices  of  retail  foods 
(table  41).  Available  data  on  other  cuts  of  meat  serve  to  indicate 
that  until  1927  retail  prices  for  these  cuts  were  relatively  lower  than 
the  retail  prices  of  other  foods.  The  lower  valued  cuts  of  beef  have 
been  especially  low  in  prices  (see  chuck  roast  and  plate  beef  in  table 
42).  With  the  prosperity  which  the  nation  has  enjoyed  during  the 
past  four  years  some  explanation  can  be  offered  for  the  greater  de- 
mand for  the  higher  prices  cuts  of  beef.  Considerable  improvement 
is  to  be  noted  in  the  retail  prices  of  the  beef  cuts  listed  since  1922 
(tables  42,  43,  44). 

One  of  the  important  factors  contributing  to  low  beef  prices  has 
been  the  propaganda  urging  consumers  to  eat  less  meat  or  to  make 
substitutions  for  it.  Some  of  the  statements  made  in  this  connection 
have  been  gross  misrepresentations.  Another  very  important  factor 
has  been  the  relatively  weak  demand  for  the  low-priced  cuts  (table 
42).  The  producer  of  beef  should  take  cognizance  of  this  and  aim  to 
produce  as  high-grade  beef  as  possible. 


COLD    STORAGE    OF    BEEF 

United  States. — Compared  with  the  total  production  of  beef,  stor- 
age holdings  are  small.  There  is  a  well-defined  seasonal  variation. 
Stocks  usually  begin  to  accumulate  during  the  fall  of  the  year  when 
larger  supplies  arrive  on  the  markets  (fig.  25).  The  peak  in  holdings 
is  generally  reached  about  January  first,  From  January  until  the 
late  summer  or  early  fall  beef  is  gradually  withdrawn  from  the 
coolers.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  the  large  volume  of  beef  which  was 
stored  during  the  latter  war  years  together  with  the  rapid  reduction 
of  holdings  during  1920. 


88 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


L 

m  © 

in 

p     CO 

« s 

W 

Eh      © 
O 

M        Ph 

g    © 


Eh      © 


Eh      C 


O 

CI 

m 

^ 

iO 

o 

o 

cr. 

<* 

o 

CO 

t^ 

oo 

CI 

OM 

00 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

CM 

CO 

CD 

C-l 

t^    O    ■«*< 

N   to    O)    to    n 

m  »-c 

9 

OS     t-h     CO 

r^    as   o   oo   co 

CO 

co    r^ 

J 

r^r^r-r^i^t^i^r^ 

« 

O) 

o 

CO 

oo 

00    CO    CO 

t—     fH     t-~     t~~     © 

o 

CO    CO 

00 

OlOONNNN-N 

s 

— 1 

_ 

O    CO    oo 

N     H     HJ     Ol     (O 

lO     CO 

OCONNNNSCD 

Pi 

IN    W    (N 

M    ■*    *     W    CO 

CO 

CO    CO 

CO 

cocococococococo 

0) 

ig8 

S.E'C 

Ph~  a 

o 
o 

t~ 

N    N    N 

i-H    "5    CO    ■*    -* 

•*      "0 

>* 

lONBNlOMNlO 

-r. 

cd    as 

oo 

1-1 

*" ' 

_,     r^     CM     *-,     *-, 

""H 

fH     i-I 

CI 

e*r«~-~*-<*-<'-'-< 

a 

o3 

w 

OS 

CO 

~H     ■*     CM 

as  hhh  io  oo  oo 

IQ 

CO    CO 

<# 

ONOlONNN^ 

B 

* 

r^ 

(O     Ol    X 

r^ 

lOi— i»-iOO-h^hcO 

Ph 

CI 

CM 

CM     CM    CO 

H/     UJ     K)     ^     ■«/ 

-fl 

tJH    lO 

»o 

(B 

§.S'C 

PH*"  a 

o 

oo 

OO    ■«*<     OS 

»   N    r-   N   Tl< 

co 

co   o 

CO 

OOCMOSCOOSCDOCO 

o 

,_l 

as  co  rt 

o 

o 

as  o   »o 

oi  o   oi   m  ^ 

■>* 

CO 

o 

'O 

O    N    O 

as  ^  co  n  oo 

^H 

t^  r~ 

CO 

cMcot^oas-HCMas 

S3 

1^ 

r^ 

t^rJ<COCOCMCOCOCO 

pq 

Ph 

CN 

CM 

"3    lO    K)    «l    (O 

CO 

CO    ■<*< 

•c 

^•«HHrJ<^^.Tf<^Tj< 

co 

a 
o 

o 

o3  «  g 

o 

to 

>*    M    N 

t-      Tj<      ■*      M      -H 

00 

t^    CO 

_H 

CMOlOCMOCOt^CO 

Ph-^  a 

c 

to    0O    H 

in  ^h  h  co  r- 

■^ 

CD    •.*< 

loasocoosooinr^ 

o 

a 

Ol    O    lO 

O0    ©    ©    CO    lO 

"+l 

•<*<   t^ 

oo 

NHl*(OT)ltO(ON 

I* 

o 
Ph 

o 

© 

co  t~   as 

o   co   co   as  o 

-*< 

00    CO 

IQ 

wnwiow^oon 

°E 

_ 

CI 

O    N    rt 

C.    CM    CM    Tf    CO 

O    CO 

~ 

OHOlOtlHlO^S 

Ph 

IN 

CM    N    CO 

co   ■*■<*<    CO    CO 

co   co 

CO 

<** 

Ph^  a 

O 

~ 

O    O    00 

CM     OS    CM    CM    00 

CO 

WHIOWOI^OIOI 

01 

aj 
o3 

O    CO    -H    oo    to 

en 

as   tj 

NN'tlcONOINN 

o 

Q 

O    O     CM 

r--   co  io   -h  c 

c 

O      -H 

c 

IN-^HiTliHiiOiOiO 

O) 

CO 

»-H     O0     t- 

CO    CM    CO    CO    0C 

a- 

cm  do 

ec 

^NlONOSNlOrt 

Ph 

Ph 

SS 

CI 

IN    N    Ifl 

O    O    00    ■*<    CM 

N      N     H      H      r. 

C) 

co   co 

lONNNMJOOOOl 

Ph*"  a 

o 

«* 

co   as  co 

CO     OO     OO     »f5     r- 

CO 

o  c 

CO^HOOCDCO'— ICOiCCO 

e3 
O 

O    CO    o 

tOOOMNMtOOlC 

OOOOOO-HCOCOCMO 

©   ©   c< 

CO    CO    CO    CO     CM    CN 

co   co 

TtiliOtOCtDtOSCO 

M 

3 

8 

o 

t» 

•h  w*  a- 

O    O    IN    N    N    M 

00    CO 

lON^NOOHOtOOl 

-d 

NCO>OlOlO(0»S» 

O 

Ph 

H     H     N 

CM    CM     CM    CM    — 

CM    CM     CM 

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 

1 
o 

g.S'fi 

Ph-^  a 

c 

e 

■^    t*    1C5 

»h   »h   r^   o   ->*i   ■* 

>C    i« 

OHNNNNNMW 

IC^SNOICOIOO 

o  o 

©    ©    <M 

lO    CO    CD    ■>»<    C- 

«* 

■>*<   ■<* 

.C 

3 

g 

00    ■* 

^h  cm  a- 

NWMrtffl<JI«ie 

COWI^HHlOrtNO 

ONwo>N»«ioiOHOMnmHi«iiD 

Ph 

N    N    N    IN 

COCOCOCMCMCMCMCMC'- 

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 

03 

igj 

OtX30t^OO»CT»<— i«00N!OtO(O*H*wlDNlOai 

OlOW'jIlONHtOCO 

o  o  o  o  es 

(ONNlO^iomiC 

intONNNNOOCOOl 

■d 

i 

3 

0) 

6 

CO    CO    O    »«    O 

OS0110>*MlOOONI8Ht001HttmilO» 

o 

C 

Neow^OKBooo^NeOMinesoooooiaiOHB 

K 

Ph 

NNNNNnWMmMWMWMMnMMM*** 

33 

aj.S'C 

Ph-^  a 

OOHK)O*Nrt0C«»Ol00»N00*ll0«IOeN 

oo 

a 
"o 

g 

-*O5t^e<5«co5t>-t^o0'«H<»- 

cocococoTtiooasco-H'Tft^ 

h 

u 

m  no  m  r—  *— 

OOHMOONOIOIO- 

N^rtl'JtllOtOC-O 

CO 

Ph 

NNOlNWW^^MtOMM********** 

.O 

©e>JOOOSt>.^OSCOt>-CNCOCNCOOO©©©©COCO"5 

a 

ocor-aseMTttcot-~aocO'*»<cD'*cou5t^.ooeM©oscor~ 

a 

*H      »*      ■" 

^     _     cs,     ^     _ 

HNNNHHNNOINN 

o 
to 

Ostf9T»<COOsasiOCOt>-CDr^»HC©©OST*»OeN00tfaCM»-l 

9 

003)ON»*!D0)«ffl®N0CI(Sa)NS»»iHMiH 

J 

Ph 

MNNMMMMmnwwfsnwnMn'f^^ 

> 

b    03 

9 

►< 

•^    u    "  ""    >>   *    >> 

1-3   fe    S    <!   S    l-S   <-s 

r- 

oo  as  o  -h  cs 

<-H    <-H    CM    CM    CN 

co 

•>*<     CD 

CC 

t^ 

1 

s 

a 

a- 

cr 

a 

cr 

OS 

CT 

OC 

a- 

CT 

W  T3 


Ph    * 


hh  -5 


^-  a 


00    _Q 


02  t> 


Ph    » 


I-8 

Ph     03 

HJ     o 


co  a 

"S  '§ 

T3  c     ■ 

K  O      > 

O  „      OJ 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


89 


£  © 


o   * 

2  tH 

g  n 

<1     CO 

«  i-( 

pt|     © 

r-\ 

u 

*  ft 

<U 

CQ      > 

3  | 

co 

a  s 

w 

~ 

pq 

&  § 

-1 

Q    ^ 

H 

&,      <U 

O     P<- 

3  | 

o     ? 

w    a> 

&h      t» 

w   ,FH 

«   S 

«   2 

e£ 

<j 

w 

a 

-4 

i 

> 

^ 

g.5"E 

P3~  a 

o 

~- 

~ 

r^ 

31 

OOOO^Hr~ooascOcOcDr^oor^r^t^r~r^t^r^i^ 

CO 

a 

CO 
W 

_^,H_TH_c,e<l_i__l_i»H_«,H,H_l_i,H  "*,,H  *"* 

g 

s 

NHitOMOSHNHIINlOHIOHNMNON^HlOH 

u 

Oh 

NNNCNN'<*i^U5'*^i'**^*'*^^«O^T|i'1i* 

T3 

Ph^  a 

OtOOHOlCONMNOlCOHNHINNHlWOnHllO 
OO-H-HC0C00005t^r—     COt^03-H00503a3CT>05C»05 

"co 

s 
w 

n 

o 

©    00    O    ■<*<    O    <-H    — tOOOO-«J«--<a5'H-<<H~H»-HCMOOCT>t~©I^ 

■£j 

^CMT<HT*MCMMai^»OCMCM^H<r>'*t'»-H©OiCOOiOO 

WMMWHl'CiOl'JlClClOlO!0(0<B(BOlOll)U)<D<0 

Ph 

-a 

g.B'S 

.2 

OCOOCOCMC'SCMU^OOlOOOiOOS^OOlOCOCOCMCMeSJ 

©0©OCOOCOCOO>0»0-*}<r^COr-COOCOcO<©«00 

CO 

S3 

Ph1**  a 

O 

o 

NfflCCOOfflHlflNON^OOOltDlOlDlOOOOOiOfflO 

S3 

b 

WHIMHlH|NrtNlO«00)OOCO<»!DlCHlHlHlHlH' 

CQ 

Ph         1 

nWC5MH'iO»®i9iOiOH,'0<Oi')'fl'OU5iflic)>fliO 

to 

a 

S-- E 

omoc5-<<HcNi-H(MOco<MTf<cM»H»-Hr^eOcccoeci^co 
ooo03eot^CTia5t^.t£>ioioooa300<oioir5ioocDt^ 

J3 
o 

u 

o 

Ph 

Pi^a 

COOOUS-^OlOOCMCN^OiCOasOt^COOOOOSlOtOcO 

u 

Ph 

0) 

OO-HOO^COtOCDd-^fMC^cOT^OO-H-^OJt^CNtCOS 

O^OOl-HiO-^iCO-HOOO^H-H-H-^THHCOCOCiCMCN 

tf^a 

0) 

3 

CO 

lC01NNHlNNHI-iHIX)NnOaiHHI10tD»0>Hl 

Ph 

(H 

cciTttcoccmooiooio-^cc-^ioinicosoioooor^ot^ 

CO 

03 
O 

g.B"B 

PS^  a 

OHiai«3NO00!0l0nOtDHM!OC6N01C<)HOO 

OOC»0)OiOHiH'INNNNMN»u5»lO'OlCIHliO 

i-H      .-*                           i— I— H.-H.— I-H,— 1^-<.-<>— I.-H     — -Ci-Hl-Hl-Hl-HlT-li-li— 1 

M 

3 

O3iOt^^HOC0OI^CDC000t^»OOCNIt^->*<t^.CDlO00T<H 

O 

E 

Ph 

o-«*<»H05CX)i^-Hoor~>rti^-HiocMi---^oco-HOoot^ 

i 

o 

a 

OOOOJOMHiHIMnn^HlHl^tOtOtOOOlOlO 

Ph-'  a 

CD 
O 

ooocot^tooot^»-Ht^c«5t^cDTjiooo5a>t^(Ma>»o»-HO 

E 

^T^^OCMOOOJ^HOOOOOOOiOCTSOCOCO^eOCOCOOO 

Ph 

NNNNNNNCONNIN«C<5NnWMMe<)WMM 

c3 

oj  <D  g 

PH*"  a 

OfOCO-Hr^cOinOiOCMOCDOOCMOOOCO^-tlCMOSO 
0000-HiO"0«0'*<M<-^-<*<^lO=£>(^OOOOOOOOr^OO 

HI 

"w 

^H^H^H^H,-|,H^Hrt.-<i-<.— (.— Ci— 1>— <.-H.-l.-Hi-l.-li— l>-H-H 

a 

3 

e00500U5tD-HOOOO'*OeNO'!*<00^^5D<»»-l>Ol^ 

o 
M 

-E 

Ph 

g.S'B 

Ph-^  a 

OOO05CN>n0Ot^.<0t^.^O-^<iOOO00eN«e<)-H05O 
OOOOi— !T)(iaio*HlHiiniOU3NI»NMOO»NllO 

& 

CO 

C 

'o 

0> 

(h 

OOOOCCO-HCNOOai^H-HIMiO^COt^-r^t^t^t^ 

m 

Ph 

c^cMCMCMCMcotoeoeocr>CMroMcocococoeococceoco 

i>2S 

Ph^  a 

ooor^<»cccot^ooooco<£>oo>>*r^oco-«<Ho>«ocM-H 

,5 

rt^rt-i«rtrtN-HN(NNNNCMINNININNPIIN 

OlM-HCCONMNNCOW^t-OOMOiHIlOHIOlMO 

HI 

u 

J 

Ph 

> 

e3 

b    03 

03     3    J 

>" 

3   •"   "  "E  >>  ^  >> 
§g^   ajs    §"9 

hp     [iH     S     ■<    S     •-»     *-» 

n^iooNcooio-'MnHiiotbh 

a 

3 

3 

>  a 

a 

3 

3 

3 

-- 

3 

r 

3 

3 

3 

>  a 

d 

2  I  -s 

2  a  a 

e>«   1— '  co 

05       .  oj 

od  p  a 

o  t;  m 

§§  g 

M      -H  fc 

—'            .  > 

Ph    2 

.  t-i 

-O   oj  o 


.  co"  "J 


(N 


•gai 


o   -d   GO* 
T   •-   cm 

..     CM    00 

M  ^  ~ 

P3    •-  ^ 
to    •• 

^s 
|§  | 

<s  o"   > 

_     - 

7!  rt 


3  «> 
Si  « 


cd  *3  tJ 

2  -S  "S 

■is  ^  o 

—     OJ 

<"  2  -d 

fie 

.2  i-  8 

a  en  «-i 
_  »^  o 

03  •     W 

"£  "»  "3 

Ph    1'hS 

•   w    * 

III 

a  5  a 

0  P3  ^  „j 
Q  •  °  I 

M  -o  «  S 

QQ  £  _|  '> 

LJ    co    Q.  Ph 

2^3   S 

T1    cm     M   i-3 

1  a    «    t 
m    -     M    >l 

..  2  >  o 
5    --«!  £ 

a  cm        ^ 

T3    S    hJ 

*,   ..  5  -a' 
°  S  so   g 

g         •      9    M- 

o  « 


a  si 

r2P3    S 


90 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


DD 

W 

a 

w 

o 

rh 

o 

* 

r-H 

< 

II 

m 

CO 

o 

I— 1 

i-l 

OS 

H 

g 

03 

H2 

Eh 

te 

s 

~HH 

<1 

CD 

~* 

s 

r-i 

H 

a 

•  ~ 

h! 

o 

d 

pq 

fo 

3 

< 

o 
r/3 

o 
ft 

w 

u 

u 

<u 

M 

ft 

Ph 

J 

ri 

4) 

««i 

O 

R 

w 

£ 

W 

B 

0> 

OS 

DQ 

o 

M 

(U 

o 

^s 

fe 

5 

w 

o 

«3 

g.S"C 


Ph"-  a 


001N>*r(IOOiOOlHOONHiONci)n010i') 
OOT(lN00!OiOil«)»tOtDtD<D(OtOl0!O!D 


NHNCCOOOMNNO'* 

—  oi  ©  cm  •*!< 


—  •>*<  in   co  co 

n  «  n  N  in 


©  O  Oi  ©  CO 


CO©  —  ©C005©ceOOCM©-*t<0!CM-**<COCMt^--<t<COt^© 

•*  M  N  M  ^  ffl 
CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


©  OS  ©  CO 


OJtOHCCOONMO 


CD    N    !D    US    K) 


O    CO    CM    CO    lO    CO 


N    H    IO    CD 


OONiOOONOMCOM^H 


Ph^  a 


Ph-'  a 


pi*3  a 


PH*"    ft 


0<*<OOHNMI1C10«IN 


©    ©    Oi    ©    CO    CO 


lO    Tfl    lO    N 


it)    CO    h    UJ    * 


lO    CO    CO    ■*! 


HOHriaoNOiMtoaxen 


tf»  co  o  o 


o  ic  oo  o 
©  ©   as  © 


HlflNNNNOOlTllinNOWtNCDNciJ 
lO^^HOOHOHHtO^^MNNM 


cO(MCOCOOOC0050000C3i05t^CO'OCMCOOt^05000 
NCONNl00100NT)llNtNWM^T(INN(»COWCOcO 


N    »    W    M    M 


■^cMt^cocomt^coo 


<Mt— I     — iCNCNWMlOWmiCK) 


t^<MCOOCO©lOT*l<MOOr^iOCN)CT503© 

"OCDlOCOOOnlNNOl 


COOO©©     —     t^t^OOCO 


O    W    *    O    M    CO 


©    CM    t^    —    — 

O    O    CT>    O     — 


t^    CO    •"*!    CO    CO    O    CO 


O^TjliONtNCN^ 


io*Mn**-*iocococo 


©OCO©T*<lOCOt^a>COTt<©lOCOCMC01^-iO-«»<t-~COI^ 

©©as©-  co->i<»o->*<-'*<Ttiio»oiocot^r^i^t^t^t--t^ 


CO    ifl    00    OO    CO    Ol 


CO>OcD©COcO-    OilOCO 


-HT*<COt^kO-«*<>0->!t<>OC000005t^CO'c*<Tf05COCOlO 

OIOOOCOCNCNLOHMCOMNCDCONNNNNNN 
i— c     —    IMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 


fl3     «     ft 
r*H  S  <; 


N    M    *    CO 

cm    cm   cm   cm    _ . 

05     0>     OS     CT5     05     05     05     OS 


•9  P5  '2 

.  h  a 

111 
i  j  p 

2    ft  M 
oj    o3 

«  Q    S3 

CM  > 

2  aj  -< 


-  2   n 

—  o 

..        .    X! 


•  *""'  (H 

73  -  S 

-S  2  "S 

°  s  • 

<M  O  +j 

OS  — I  Q, 

—  ..  4) 

2  _•  02 

co 

CM  _J  00 

I  ~  CM 

»  ■;  o 

CM  -"  — 

CM  ■" 

O  tf  <XJ 

§22 

•a -A  • 

3  CM  oo 

pq  a>  o 

1  Se 

«2  2  r 


2  E 

CM  > 

—  « 

-  £ 

t>  3  ^ 

a -a  3 

.a  a  o 


PQ 


Cd 


L   * !  -2  S 

-D    —      3  4) 

«3   -  —  Ph 

ft«o     g  CS 

n  —   k  m 

o  3 

P  3  8  § 

■S  -2  il 

2    -  a  S 

7  2  '3  o 

S  -  "S  *2 

Oi   co     (-i 


3   a 


4)     O 


O      ..  C3      Q, 

3    «j  02    'S 

,8  «*  k  .9 

02       .  O     C 

—  -Q   a 


PQ     r-1 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OP   THE   BEEP    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


91 


It  is  apparent  that  the  cold  storage  of  beef  has  the  effect  of  evening 
out  supplies  for  consumption  and  in  all  probability  has  some  effect 
on  prices.  The  coolers  begin  to  receive  beef  in  the  fall  when  prices 
at  Chicago  are  relatively  low  and  supplies  large.  As  the  prices  of 
fresh  beef  approach  the  seasonal  high  beef  is  removed  from  the 
coolers,  and  supplies  reach  the  low  point  about  August  or  September 
first. 


Stocks  of  Frozen  Beef  in  Cold-Storage  Warehouses  and  Meat-Packing 

Establishments,  and  Beef  in  Cure  and  Process  of  Cure, 

United  States,  1917-1927 

Mil/ions  of  Pounds 


300 


i9ir 


1919 


1924        1925 


1987 


Fig.  25. — With  the  larger  receipts  coming  on  the  market  during  the  last  three 
or  four  months  of  the  year  a  surplus  of  beef  accumulates.  This  is  placed  in 
storage  until  a  peak  is  reached  about  the  first  of  each  year.  Lighter  supplies  of 
cattle  in  the  spring  of  the  year  cause  beef  to  be  removed  from  storage,  a  low 
point  in  frozen  stocks  being  reached  in  late  summer  or  early  fall.  The  beef  in 
cure  and  process  of  cure  does  not  give  evidence  of  a  well-defined  seasonal  variation. 

(Data  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Beef — frozen  stocks  in  cold  storage  warehouses.  Yearbook 
of  Agriculture   1926:  1060.     1927.     Current  data  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets.) 


Data  since  1917  for  cured  beef  and  that  in  the  process  of  cure  fail 
to  show  large  seasonal  variations  (fig.  25).  In  general,  the  movement 
of  beef  in  the  process  of  cure  corresponds  to  that  of  stocks  in  storage, 
although  the  seasonal  movement  is  not  so  pronounced  in  the  former 
as  in  the  latter  case. 


92 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  45 

Monthly  Cattle  and  Calf  Keceipts  at  all  Public  Stockyards  and 

Percentage  Monthly  Receipts,  1915-1928 

MONTHLY  RECEIPTS 
(Thousands,  i.e.  000  omitted) 


Year 

Jan. 
1,029 

Feb. 

768 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

1915 

1,017 

987 

1,111 

1,113 

1,039 

1,246 

1,531 

1,818 

1,724 

1,170 

14,553 

1916 

1,202 

1,055 

1,201 

1,151 

1,385 

1,319 

1,154 

1,584 

1,779 

2,409 

1,977 

1,460 

17,676 

1917 

1,696 

1,302 

1,330 

1,539 

1,961 

1,759 

1,729 

1,814 

2,357 

3,054 

2,626 

1,899 

23,066 

1918 

1,727 

1,498 

1,713 

2,046 

1,863 

1,815 

2,128 

2,024 

2,826 

2,865 

2,648 

2,142 

25,295 

1919 

2,119 

1,453 

1,517 

1,767 

1,836 

1,588 

2,016 

2,039 

2,396 

3,008 

2,702 

2,182 

24,623 

1920 

1,881 

1,480 

1,663 

1,557 

1,778 

1,879 

1,671 

1,962 

2,294 

2,209 

2,428 

1,395 

22,197 

1921 

1,644 

1,190 

1,566 

1,494 

1,542 

1,580 

1,343 

1,867 

1,906 

2,310 

1,928 

1,417 

19,787 

1922 

1,628 

1,417 

1,622 

1,470 

1,878 

1,759 

1,709 

2,149 

2,397 

2,936 

2,427 

1,825 

23,217 

1923 

1,877 

1,427 

1,502 

1,670 

1,900 

1,629 

1,903 

2,214 

2,295 

2,802 

2,182 

1,810 

23,211 

1924 

1,888 

1,457 

1,556 

1,751 

1,890 

1,673 

1,798 

1,934 

2,566 

2,736 

2,363 

2,083 

23,695 

1925 

1,869 

1,530 

1,860 

1,826 

1,737 

1,746 

1,970 

2,245 

2,157 

2,789 

2,282 

2,056 

24,067 

1926 

1,840 

1,551 

1,811 

1,711 

1,894 

1,871 

1,820 

1,997 

2,397 

2,674 

2,460 

1,846 

23,872 

1927 

1,832 

1,555 

1,743 

1,674 

1,955 

1,732 

1,547 

2,075 

1,988 

2,635 

2,346 

1,691 

22,762 

1928 

1,771 

1,516 

1,465 

1,685 

1,798 

1,558 

1,650 

1,828 

Percentage  Monthly  Receipts 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1915 

7.07 

5.28 

6.99 

6.78 

7.63 

7.65 

7.14 

8.56 

10.52 

12.49 

11.85 

8.04 

1916 

6.80 

5.97 

6.79 

6.51 

7.84 

7.46 

6.53 

8.96 

10.06 

13.63 

11.18 

8.26 

1917 

7.35 

5.64 

5.77 

6.67 

8  50 

7.63 

7.50 

7.86 

10.22 

13.24 

11.38 

8.23 

1918 

6.83 

5.92 

6.77 

8.09 

7.37 

7.18 

8.41 

8.00 

11.17 

11.33 

10.47 

8.47 

1919 

8.61 

5.90 

6.16 

7.18 

7.46 

6.45 

8.19 

8.28 

9.73 

12.22 

10.97 

8.86 

1920 

8.47 

6.67 

7.49 

7.01 

8.01 

8.47 

7.53 

8.84 

10.33 

9.95 

10.94 

6.28 

1921 

8.31 

6.01 

7.91 

7.55 

7.79 

7.99 

6.79 

9.44 

9.63 

11.67 

9.74 

7.16 

1922 

7.01 

6.10 

6.99 

6.33 

8.09 

7.58 

7.36 

9.26 

10.32 

12.64 

10.45 

7.86 

1923 

8.09 

6.15 

6  47 

7.19 

8.19 

7.02 

8.20 

9.54 

9.89 

12.07 

9.40 

7.80 

1924 

7.97 

6.15 

6.57 

7.39 

7.98 

7.06 

7.59 

8.16 

10.83 

11.55 

9.97 

8.79 

1925 

7.77 

6  36 

7.73 

7.59 

7.22 

7.25 

8.19 

9.33 

8.96 

11.59 

9.48 

8.54 

1926 

7.71 

6.50 

7.59 

7.17 

7.93 

7.84 

7.62 

8.37 

10.04 

11.20 

10.30 

7.73 

1927 

8.05 

6.83 

7.66 

7.35 

8.59 

7.61 

6.80 

9.12 

8.73 

11.58 

10.31 

7.43 

Sources  of  data:  Monthly  receipts  1915-1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Receipts  of  cattle  and  calves  at  public 
stockyards.  Yearbook  1926:  1042.  1927.  1927-1928.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets.  Percentage 
monthly  receipts  computed  by  authors. 


MOVEMENTS   OF   CATTLE 

Market  Receipts  at  Public  Stockyards. — Receipts  at  the  public 
stockyards  of  the  country  at  which  records  of  receipts  have  been  kept 
over  a  considerable  period  of  years  give  indications  of  distinct  seasonal 
movement  (table  45).  While  such  data  may  give  some  indication  of 
total  supplies,  interpretations  might  be  misleading  unless  considered 
in  conjunction  with  stocker  and  feeder  shipments  (table  46).  Gen- 
erally speaking,  the  four  months — August  to  November  inclusive — are 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE    BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


93 


the  months  of  above-normal  receipts.  A  large  portion  of  these  receipts 
are  stocker  and  feeder  cattle,  as  indicated  by  the  heavy  shipments 
during  this  same  period.  California  producers  will  be  interested  in 
receipts  during  the  months  April  to  July  (table  45),  on  account  of 
the  surplus  which  at  times  is  available  in  this  state  during  years  of 
superior  natural  feed. 

TABLE  46 

Cattle  and  Calves:  Stocker  and  Feeder  Shipments  from  Public  Stockyards 

and  Percentage  Monthly  Shipments,  United  States,  1916-1928 

SHIPMENTS 

(Thousands,  i.  e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

1916 

221 

197 

250 

262 

289 

264 

171 

330 

464 

682 

461 

256 

3,847 

1917 

260 

213 

249 

306 

401 

353 

262 

330 

588 

768 

729 

344 

4,803 

1918 

222 

214 

319 

385 

491 

393 

274 

418 

604 

704 

623 

366 

5,013 

1919 

364 

264 

277 

391 

442 

272 

236 

397 

611 

839 

723 

470 

5,286 

1920 

349 

240 

241 

244 

323 

272 

218 

314 

488 

580 

553 

280 

4,102 

1921 

205 

166 

236 

238 

214 

209 

122 

355 

395 

622 

497 

245 

3,504 

1922 

233 

243 

282 

235 

359 

259 

223 

469 

630 

864 

710 

357 

4,864 

1923 

281 

210 

199 

233 

300 

234 

223 

480 

631 

785 

624 

353 

4,553 

1924 

243 

170 

174 

239 

275 

201 

169 

306 

580 

763 

549 

309 

3,978 

1925 

207 

176 

230 

271 

216 

154 

243 

360 

427 

717 

489 

333 

3,823 

1926 

225 

177 

184 

202 

218 

169 

198 

252 

522 

694 

570 

301 

3,712 

1927 

205 

175 

200 

204 

284 

170 

138 

269 

407 

675 

615 

319 

3,613 

1928 

233 

194 

173 

254 

236 

183 

196 

336 

Percentage  Monthly  Shipments 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1916 

5.74 

5.12 

6.50 

6.81 

7.51 

6.86 

4.45 

8.58 

12  06 

17  73 

11.98 

6.65 

1917 

5  41 

4  43 

5.18 

6.37 

8.35 

7  35 

5  45 

6.87 

12.24 

15.99 

15.18 

7.16 

1918 

4  43 

4.27 

6.36 

7.68 

9.79 

7.84 

5.47 

8  34 

12  05 

14.04 

12.43 

7.30 

1919 

6  89 

4.99 

5  24 

7.40 

8.36 

5  15 

4.46 

7  51 

11  56 

15.87 

13.68 

8.89 

1620 

8.51 

5  85 

5.88 

5.95 

7.87 

6.63 

5  31 

7.65 

11.90 

14  14 

13.48 

6.83 

1S21 

5  85 

4  73 

6  74 

6.79 

6.11 

5  96 

3.48 

10.13 

11  27 

17.75 

14.18 

7.00 

1922 

4.79 

5  00 

5.80 

4  83 

7.38 

5.32 

4  58 

9.64 

12.95 

17.76 

14.60 

7.34 

1923 

6  17 

4  61 

4  37 

5  12 

6.59 

5  14 

4  90 

10  54 

13  86 

17.24 

13  71 

7.75 

1924 

6  11 

4  27 

4  37 

6  01 

6.91 

5  05 

4  25 

7.69 

14  58 

19.18 

13.80 

7.77 

1925 

5  41 

4.60 

6  02 

7.03 

5.65 

4.03 

6.36 

9.42 

11  17 

18.75 

12.79 

8.71 

1926 

6.06 

4.77 

4.96 

5  44 

5.87 

4.55 

5  33 

6  79 

14.06 

18.70 

15  36 

8  11 

1927 

5.67 

4.84 

5  54 

5.65 

7.86 

4  71 

3.82 

7.45 

11.26 

18.68 

17.02 

8.83 

Sources  of  data:  Shipments,  1916-1926.   U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.   Stocker  and  feeder  shipments.     Yearbook 
1926:  1043.    1927.   Percentage  monthly  shipments  computed  by  authors. 


Stocker  and  Feeder  Shipments,  United  States. — A  considerable 
part  of  the  receipts  on  the  cattle  markets  of  the  country  consist  of 
stocker  and  feeder  cattle  which  are  reshipped  from  the  market  to 
farms  and  feed  lots.  This  movement  is  highly  seasonal,  the  fall 
months  being  above  normal  (table  46).    The  seasonal  movement  may 


94  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

be  of  interest  to  the  California  cattleman  who  at  times  may  be  inter- 
ested in  removing  the  surplus  from  the  market  during  the  grass- 
cattle  season.  Shipments  in  the  country  at  large  are  relatively  light 
during  the  spring  and  summer  months  until  August.  During  the 
latter  month  there  is  a  most  pronounced  upward  turn  in  the  volume 
of  offerings  which  reach  their  peak  in  October.  There  has  been  a 
gradual  decrease  in  the  number  of  shipments  since  1922,  which  has 
been  caused  in  general  by  the  weak  demand  for  cattle. 

The  conditions  surrounding  the  corn  crop  have  an  important 
influence  on  the  demand  for  feeder  cattle,  as  the  larger  number  are 
fed  in  the  eleven  corn-belt  states.  The  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  reports  at  intervals  of  three  months  the  number  of 
animals  on  feed  in  this  section.  On  January  1,  1928,  the  number  of 
cattle  on  feed  was  6  per  cent  below  that  of  January  1,  1927.  The 
April  1,  1928  estimate  showed  a  reduction  of  4  per  cent  as  compared 
with  the  same  date  a  year  previous. 

Shipments  out  of  Counties,  California. — The  Cattle  Protection 
Service  of  the  California  State  Department  of  Agriculture  reports 
monthly  on  the  number  of  cows,  steers,  calves,  bulls,  and  stags  shipped 
out  of  the  various  counties  of  the  state.  These  data  should  give,  over 
a  series  of  years,  a  rough  approximation  of  the  surplus  produced  in 
the  various  sections  of  the  state  during  different  months  of  the  year. 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  data  in  many  cases  include 
animals  which  are  not  in  market  condition  but  which  nevertheless 
must  be  moved  on  account  of  feed  conditions,  etc.  Over  a  long  series 
of  years  this  information  may  prove  to  be  of  considerable  value  in 
anticipating  movements  from  the  various  sections  of  the  state. 

Steers  form  the  largest  class  of  animals  shipped  out  of  the  differ- 
ent counties  both  because  females  are  used  in  larger  numbers  for 
replacements  and  because  a  large  percentage  of  cows  used  for  beef  are 
slaughtered  in  the  producing  sections  of  the  state.  On  account  of  the 
dependence  on  grass,  the  movement  is  highly  seasonal;  during  five 
months — May  to  September — approximately  60  per  cent  (1923 — 59.4 
per  cent ;  1924—62.3  per  cent ;  1925—58.8  per  cent ;  1926—63.7  per 
cent;  1927 — 60.3  per  cent)  of  the  steers  are  moved  out  of  the  various 
counties  of  the  state.  The  month  of  April  is  highly  variable  on 
account  of  earliness  or  lateness  of  the  season.  Numbers  shipped  out 
during  the  remaining  months  of  the  year  are  relatively  small. 

A  fairly  close  correlation  has  existed  between  the  seasonal  move- 
ments of  cows  and  those  of  steers  out  of  the  various  counties  of  the 
state.    The  six  months  of  April  to  September,  inclusive,  for  the  years 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  95 

studied  (1923-1927)  show  the  largest  numbers  of  cows  shipped  out 
of  the  counties  (1923—66.1  per  cent;  1924—57.9  per  cent  (foot-and- 
mouth  disease)  ;  1925—66.8  per  cent;  1926—60.7  per  cent;  1927—65.6 
per  cent).  February  is  conspicuously  low  in  this  regard.  Data  are 
not  available  over  a  sufficiently  long  period  of  time  to  show  any 
definite  trend,  but  during  the  few  years  studied  the  number  of  cows 
shipped  from  the  counties  has  increased  more  rapidly  than  the  num- 
ber of  steers.  This  situation  has  resulted  to  some  extent  in  the 
depletion  of  beef  herds. 

Large  numbers  of  calves  are  slaughtered  in  certain  of  the  dairy 
counties  for  shipment  to  the  larger  centers  of  population — conse- 
quently these  would  be  shown  under  slaughter  data  and  not  under 
animals  shipped  out.  On  account  of  the  large  number  of  calves  of 
dairy  origin,  the  time  of  calving  has  an  influence  on  the  time  of  year 
at  which  calves  are  shipped.  The  larger  number  of  cows  calve  in  the 
spring  of  the  year,  as  shown  by  the  seasonal  production  in  the  state.41 
Approximately  50  per  cent  of  the  calves  were  sent  out  of  the  counties 
during  March,  April,  May,  and  June  (1923 — 49.30  per  cent;  1924— 
50.99  per  cent ;  1925—48.62  per  cent ;  1926—56.36  per  cent ;  1927— 
42.1  per  cent) .  From  the  peak  month  in  the  spring  a  gradual  decrease 
takes  place  until  the  low  point  is  reached  in  September.  A  slight 
increase  in  the  shipments  for  October  and  November  clearly  shows 
the  effort  of  fall  calving.  This  is  shown  in  some  small  degree  by  the 
seasonal  production  in  the  state. 

Shipments  of  All  Cattle  into  California. — Several  classifications 
are  made  of  cattle  shipped  into  the  state  and  each  should  be  kept 
clearly  in  mind  by  the  reader.  An  attempt  will  be  made  to  discuss 
each  classification  separately. 

Data  with  reference  to  the  number  of  all  cattle  shipped  into  the 
state  are  available  since  1922  (fig.  26).  These  shipments  include  not 
only  cattle  destined  for  immediate  slaughter  but  also  feeders,  dairy 
cattle,  breeding  stock,  etc.  Regardless  of  this  fact,  all  cattle  coming 
into  the  state  add  to  the  potential  beef  supply.  While  a  drop  in  the 
number  imported  occurred  in  1923,  data  since  then  show  an  increase. 
This  might  have  been  expected  considering  the  rapid  growth  of  the 
human  population  and  the  stationary  position  held  by  the  cattle 
population  in  California. 

The  seasonal  movement  in  the  shipments  of  cattle  is  most  pro- 
nounced, occurring  with  a  high  degree  of  regularity.    The  peak  month 


4i  Voorhies,   Edwin   C.     Economic   aspects  of  the   dairy  industry.     California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  437:  1-192.     1927. 


96 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


of  the  year  is  November,  and  imports  then  decline  until  July,  the  low 
month  of  the  year.  A  rapid  increase  occurs  from  August  to  the  peak 
month.  Generally  speaking,  shipments  are  heavy  during  the  fall 
and  winter  and  light  during  the  spring  and  summer. 


Cattle  Shipped  into  California,  1922-1927 


Total  Cars 


1922 


1923 


192<t 


19T5 


1926 


1927 


1923 


Fig.  26. — Since  1923  there  has  been,  a  notable  increase  in  the  number  of 
cattle  shipped  into  the  state.  The  larger  number  of  feeder  cattle  shipped  in  has 
been  largely  responsible  for  this  increase,  and  the  seasonal  movement  of  all-cattle 
shipments  is  influenced  to  a  considerable  degree  by  feeder  shipments. 

(Data  from  table  47.) 


Origin  of  All  Cattle  Shipped  into  California.— During  the  six 
years  1922-1927,  Arizona  has  been  the  source  of  the  largest  number 
of  cattle  shipped  into  the  state.  The  following  are  the  percentages 
(medians  of  percentages  for  the  six-year  period  1922-1927)  of  the 
importations  furnished  by  the  states  in  which  cattle  shipments 
destined  for  California  originated:  Arizona  31,  Nevada  17,  Utah 
14,  Idaho  8,  Oregon  8,  New  Mexico  6,  Texas  6,  Colorado  3,  and 
Wyoming  2. 

Slaughter  Cattle  and  Calves  Shipped  into  California. —  (See  page 
50  and  figs.  12  and  13.) 


BUU  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


97 


GO 
P 

c 
3  c 


H 
o 

Washingt 
Wyoming 
Other  sta 

Nevada ... 
New  Mex 
Oregon 

-> 
3* 
J 

I 
P 

I 
s" 

0 

4— 1 

1 

p 

T 
O 

Arizona 
Canada 
Colorado. 

O 

p 

o 

o 

"n" 

b 

0 
3 

p 

O 

(g' 

o 

3' 

C 
3 
•-1 

!_, 

Iffc 

MM    t9H 

*4. 

© 

44. 

m»  4* 

»    M     H     M     OO 

S3 

vj 

© 

31 

to 

4»- 

-j  >— 

M    Oi    vl    O    M 

-I 

to 

to 

© 

to    vl 

to   00   ©   >-»   to 

Cn 

-O      4- 

SC 

M 

h- 

o 

I-*             t-»             tO 

o 

Cn 

to 

O    OO    M    v|    H 

SC 

to 

p— I 

S3    Cn 

S3 

m    M    »    tO    CO 

» 

S3     CO 

o 

- 

Cn 

cn    vi 

-1 

■o    en    v|    44,    © 

CO     44. 

© 

,_, 

4». 

—       4—4-4                    tO 

.o 

CD 

00 

4-     tO 

X    O    W    v|    O) 

— 

as 

Cn 

r" 

OS 

—  © 

CO    4-     O    CO    as 

S\ 

as    cn 

SO     44. 

44- 

CO      , 

4-  oo 

os   co  en  co   -j 

S3 

X    CD 

vl    CO 

"2 

M 

to          h-    h-    co 

m 

© 

cn 

vl    CD     CO    l—i     tO 

CO 

44. 

44. 

M 

to 

lO 

©    tO 

CO 

vl    00    4-    4»-    i-» 

w 

S3    Cn 

— I 

in    to 

4- 

.o    ►-    44.    o    Cn 

_I< 

CO    en 

0 

- 

M 

CD 

O     i—     1-4     4—    CO 

CSS 

co 

as   i—    44.   o  4— 

Ot 

-4     © 

to 

© 

to 

CO 

4*    Cn 

J> 

Cn    as    to    ©    44. 

Xj 

as   co 

OS       4_ 

© 

o 

h-     CO 

S3 

as   co   ^i   oo   co 

© 

in    to 

©    CD 

£ 

to 

o 

so                      co 

l_L 

X 

H 

o 

to 

vi   as   co   co   4— 

S3 

S3     CO 

JO 

VI  VJ 

00    44.    oo    en    CD 

-o 

CO     vi 

co    co 

p 

© 

©    00 

Cn    4—    en    co    to 

v! 

X>       I— 

CO    OS 

© 

r 

«H 

CO 

44.                           4-4     co 

j> 

P 

to 

to 

as  cd   vj   44.  4— 

© 

© 

cc 

0 

vl 

to    CO 

S3 

—    Cn    4—    4—    © 

X 

o 

r 

^ 

4-                           to 

CO 

rt> 

Ol 

h-i    to 

— '    co   as   co   en 

en 

co 

cr 

vl 

to    © 

44   to   o  oo   s 

» 

oo 

to 

r 

g 

4>.                               tO 

p 

©    OS    tO     CO    CD 

+4.     vl 

^o 

JO 

oo 

vi   en 

S3 

©    CD     ©    4-i    © 

99 

VI    CO 

e 

© 

> 

© 

CO 

"O 

co 

Cn    O0    to    ►—    co 

-4 

S3     tO 

o 

4-    © 

CO    44.    vj    to    en 

t* 

as  vi 

44. 

CO 

g 

VI 

en 

p 
<< 

44. 

tO     44.    CO 

CO      4-1 

Cn 

00 

to 

co    en   co   to   4— 

00    oo 

vl 

e-i 

V, 

d> 

C 

© 

© 

vi          to    to   00 

to 

© 

to 

•"* 

CO 

Oi    O    Cn    M    CO 

4*     4- 

00 

© 

<D 

vl 

in 

co 

to 

C_ 

© 

CO            4-i            to 

to 

CO 

«< 

to 

© 

to 

4-   44.  as  vi  to 

*" 

en 

© 

cn 

► 

en 

CO 

e 

vl 

44.  44.  to         en 

en 

qq 

vi  to 

l— 

vi  vi  vi  as   cn 

CO 

© 

4- 

cc 

en 

_ 

*fc 

to 

44. 

•0 

oo 

►—    CO 

vl 

co   4—   os 

en 

30 

CO 

co  en 

4». 

© 

►—      H-      © 

OS 

CO 

en 

Cn 

r 

CO 

o 

vj 

tO             CO    ►—    C5S 

to 

■4JJ 

o 

Cn 

en 

oo   en   co   cd    vi 

3 1 

as   44. 

CO 

© 

CO     OS 

en 

cd  as  co   ©  to 

£ 

©     vl 

en    v| 

00 

4t. 

to 

ss 

00 

44.  4-4  v-   44.  en 

to 

en 

o 

o 

vi 

co   co   as   as  oo 

4». 

en    cd 

0 

< 

44. 

►—   cn 

'-, 

OS    CO    oo    ©    44. 

en 

vl     O 

CO    CO 

en 

tO 

„ 

0 

"co 

4*.                      4- 

CO 

^J 

— 

a 

CO 

CO 

©       CO        4- 

-I 

CO 

co 

to 

CO 

4» 

to 

4- 

to 

90 

CO 

** 

vl 

98 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


"#    O    O 

0 

:  «o 

:  r-  co   r 

:   as 

:          co   cm 

»o    H    00 

:   co   i~-   cm 

:   cm 

O0    OO 

o 

CM 

IO    CO 

Q 

"H 

rH     OO* 

n  w  n  o  h  ko  »*.  o>  co  i-h  co  o>  t--         r~e» 

o 

•«*<            O)    M    n    m    (O    M    O            CO    «- 

<  »o 

■«*<                rH                CM     t*<                HC<J 

O    CM 

£ 

N 

ijT  oo" 

kOOOr^COOiOI^COCOUOCOO 

1    CO             OO    CO 

o 

CD            to    n    m    00    H    UJ    - c            CO    r- 

1    CO             ^<    N 

CD             l-H             -*f     rH    rH             CO 

o  t^ 

O 

-<* 

co*  of 

ft 

a; 

in  >a  n  m  to  to  » 

:    oo   •*    co 

CM    •"* 

•*    •*    lO    H    N 
■«f              rH              CO 

:    O0             rH 

2  fc    ' 

QD 

rH      © 

■«tl 

CM    O    00 

O0    <D    <*    N    tO    H    r 

CO     rH 

M 

©     rH    ■* 

•CO             CM    "<f    ■* 

CM    U0 

3 

CO 

1C    CO 

«! 

:                      Oi" 

>> 

»Oifl<)INN»^HIN 

•«*<    OO 

O    rH    CO             rH             rH             CO 

CM    O0 

~3 

CM 

CM     CM 

Hs 

oo" 

9 

CO    00    rH 

CO     rH     ITS     CT>     CO 

•*                 CO      rH 

co 

3 

OO             CO 

00    CM     CM             t~ 

CO    CM 

OS 

■«*< 

£ 

•-S 

CM 

>1 

C3 

*    N    OO 

*C    CO    CO     CO    OS    CO    rH 

<x 

rH     t^ 

O     rH    rl 

rH     T*l     CO                                     rH 

V 

oo  a> 

«C 

CD      rH 

s 

CM 

»    M    ifl    "O 

CO     (~~     00     rH     rH     r>< 

rH      t~- 

IC     rH     CO 

H     IN     N     N                rH 

OO    03 

ft 

CM 

•^  t^- 

< 

J5 

iHtDOnNHOONiONlfl 

t> 

00    CO 

M    U3    'fl             «J    M    ^    (O    rt             tJ< 

M 

ira  •<*< 

a 

rH                                                                               CO 

t^  o 

s 

OO 
CM 

rH     ^<     rH     OO 

O     O     CT>     t-     rH     O 

rH      t^ 

xi 

-HH     CO     «0     rH 

CO    CO    CM    -^             CM 

co  m 

0 

CM 

CM 

t^      rH 

h 

00 
CM 

«NO)HNHOOO)OONM 

t^-     OS 

e3 

lO    "5    lO    CO             M    M    N    ■*             CM 

CO     OJ 

■<H                rH                          rH                           CM 

rH     CD 

>-5 

*"*  3 

, 

r^-rHcMOOCMOt^-CD-<*<rH->i<     — 

oc 

rH     t^ 

OOnOlCnWNOONNNK 

M 

co   ■* 

rHCOCT>rHCOO>-«*<lOOO                rH 

CO    «5 

o 

H 

00                                     rH                                     rH 

>C    CO 

rH      CO 

■«J<-^COCOCDCOOCDCDrHOa2 

>r. 

CD    CO 

CO 

CMrHCMt^OCOCOr- ICMlO-^rH 

CC 

CO    CO 

CM 

NNtiWIXIOlOOOH             Tfl 

t^    OO 

CT> 

IO                rH                                                          rH 

CM    O 
rH     t^ 

COCMCOCM-«tl>OOr^rHOt~» 

oc 

uo  »o 

«5 

1000(00<Ora^N^N 

cc 

OO    •»*< 

CO 

C5CMrHCMOCMlO«OCO             CO 

t-  o 

CT> 

^                ^H                rH     rH                          rH 

rH      CD 
rH     CO 

TjtrHCMOCOrHCMUOO'-HlCrH 

«OM^NNn*o>HioN 

OiNMCO'JIlfllOtOtO             CM 

Tf 

a>  co 

Tfl 

>c 

t^    CO 

CO 

rH      CO 

OS 

CO 
CO 

rHCOOCMCMCMI^-cDlCOO'*! 

OOOCDCMt^rHOOrHCOCMO 

cc 

CO    -H 

CO 

C<l 

^    C75 

©rHrHCOOt^COCOOO                CO 

>o   o 

CT> 

CO                rH                rH 

OO    CD 
CO 

n^NtooiHCSHoo^ioio 

t-»    CT> 

COOOO«5COrHCMrHCM                OOrH 

a>  oo 

cm 

1C             IO    H    N    Ol    O0    *    M             CM 

CO    CO 

o> 

CO                                 rH     tH 

>> 

>-. 

13  ,- 
3  C 

♦ 

t 

O    M 

(2     03 

6 
u 

o 
o 

02 

o 
o 

0 

c 
c 

N 

c 

X 
i 

o 

0 

o 
A 

0} 

T 

rf 

a 
«9 

o 

T3 

> 

a; 

o 
£ 

a 

C 

0 

t 
5 
t- 

C 

a 

C 
C 

fc 

a 

OB 

1 

bi 
(3 

s 

o 

> 

; 

03 

c3 

a 

efl 

O 

i 

3 

0 

G 

o 

o 

-0  rH 


«      ft 

ll 

to     £ 

C   r 


So 

,t!     >h 


^      0)      H 


BlJL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


99 


Feeder  Cattle  Shipped  into  California. — Although  over  80  per 
cent  of  the  cattle  slaughtered  in  California  have  their  immediate 
origin  within  the  state,  a  considerable  number  of  these  have  been 
bred  outside  the  state,  as  is  shown  by  the  movements  of  feeder  cattle 
into  California.  While  the  shipments  of  slaughter  cattle  have  shown 
no  definite   trend,   feeder-cattle  shipments  have   tended  to   increase 


Movement  of  Feeder  Cattle  into  California,  1922-1927 
1  car  =  37  head. 


Cars 
3&oo 

3200 
2600 
2400 
2000 
1600 


1300 


eoo 


400 


360 
320 
2B0 
Z<tO 
20O 
160 


120 


1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927 

Fig.  27. — The  movement  of  feeder  cattle  into  California  is  highly  seasonal, 
the  larger  shipments  being  made  during  October,  November,  and  December. 
Shipments  are  usually  light  during  the  late  spring  and  summer.  There  has  been 
a  notable  increase  in  these  shipments  during  the  past  few  years.  Arizona  and 
New  Mexico  contributed  the  larger  portion  of  these  shipments. 

(Data  from  table  48   and  similar  data  prepared  by  authors.) 

rapidly  (fig.  27).  These  shipments  point  to  an  even  larger  depen- 
dence of  California  on  the  other  western  states  than  might  at  first  be 
anticipated.  Feeder-cattle  shipments  are  highly  seasonal,  approxi- 
mately 60  per  cent  entering  the  state  during  October,  November,  and 
December.  The  five  months  of  April  to  August  have  been  those  of 
small  shipments.  Considerable  variation  has  occurred  in  the  receipts 
during  the  first  three  months  of  the  year. 


100 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


During  the  six  years,  1922-1927,  the  largest  number  of  feeders 
shipped  into  this  state  originated  in  the  eleven  western  states  and 
Texas  with  occasional  shipments  from  the  middle  west,  Canada,  and 
Mexico  (fig.  27).  Arizona  has  furnished  the  bulk  of  the  shipments, 
followed  by  Idaho,  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  Utah,  Nevada,  and  Texas  in 
the  order  named.  These  seven  states  have  furnished  approximately 
90  per  cent  of  the  total  shipments.  Shipments  from  almost  all  of  the 
states  give  evidence  of  considerable  irregularity,  brought  about  to  a 
large  extent  by  feed  and  climatic  conditions.  The  increase  in  ship- 
ments from  Mexico  is  of  interest.  With  the  rehabilitation  of  the 
cattle  industry  of  the  southern  republic  (p.  118)  it  seems  reasonable 
to  expect  any  surplus  to  seek  an  outlet  in  the  United  States. 


TABLE  49 
Monthly  Shipments  of  Feeder  Cattle  into  California,  1922-1927 

(Carloads) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

1922 

703 

334 

341 

212 

134 

566 

126 

172 

200 

1,367 

3,375 

1,867 

9,397 

1923 

792 

514 

267 

69 

222 

137 

59 

233 

403 

1,576 

2,712 

1,558 

8,543 

1924 

703 

165 

286 

194 

20 

34 

190 

312 

725 

1,282 

1,250 

2,018 

7,179 

1925 

935 

1,070 

758 

620 

221 

732 

317 

178 

673 

2,041 

2,229 

2,011 

11,785 

1926 

905 

895 

780 

414 

332 

369 

224 

406 

1,268 

2,244 

3,142 

1,788 

12,727 

1927 

1,127 

761 

758 

481 

681 

733 

224 

523 

1,102 

3,048 

4,007 

1,586 

15,231 

Note. — Fractions  of  cars  prevent  totals  of  individual  months  in  every  case  from  equaling  total  given 
in  table  49. 

Source  of  data:  Western  Cattle  Marketing  Association. 

Cattle  (Exclusive  of  Calves)  Shipped  Out  of  California. — While 
records  of  out-of-state  shipments  are  available  for  five  years  only, 
1923-1927,  an  analysis  of  these  is  of  interest.  During  the  four  years 
1923,  1925,  1926,  and  1927,  an  average  of  20,614  head  were  sent  out- 
side of  the  state.  This  movement  is  highly  seasonal,  approximately 
75  per  cent  moving  out  during  April,  May,  and  June,  with  by  far 
the  heavier  shipments  occurring  during  the  latter  two  months.  These 
consist  of  early  grass  cattle  which  can  stand  long-distance  shipping 
and  are  moved  to  the  markets  of  Seattle,  North  Portland,  Ogden, 
Denver,  Salt  Lake  City,  Omaha,  Kansas  City,  and  in  a  few  instances 
to  Chicago.  In  addition  to  shipments  made  to  the  above  markets, 
stockers  and  feeders  are  sent  to  the  other  western  states.  Oregon, 
Washington,  Nebraska,  Missouri,  Utah,  and  Nevada  receive  over  90 
per  cent  of  the  cattle  shipped  out  of  the  state. 

The  California  grass  cattle  season  of  1927  witnessed  a  larger 
movement  of  grass  cattle  to  markets  outside  the  state  than  has  taken 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  101 

place  during  the  previous  four  years.42  This  can  be  attributed  to  two 
main  reasons:  (1)  an  active  and  high  cattle  market  in  the  United 
States  as  compared  with  previous -years,  and  (2)  an  exceptional  grass- 
cattle  season  in  California,  many  steers  putting  on  100-150  pounds 
more  weight  than  in  previous  years  owing  to  excellent  grass  conditions 
and  plentitude  of  feed.  California  cattle  growers  are  also  selecting 
feeders  with  more  caution  and  furnishing  some  supplemental  feeds 
such  as  oat  hay,  cottonseed  cake  and  ground  barley  in  a  limited  ration, 
in  addition  to  grass. 

According  to  records  of  movement  maintained  by  the  Federal  and 
State  Market  News  Service,  1927  was  the  first  year  in  the  past  four 
that  any  California  cattle  reached  the  Chicago  market.  The  common 
practice  in  1927  was  to  sell  weighty  California  steers  at  main-line 
Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Valley  points  to  eastern  cattle  buyers 
or  speculators  who  shipped  them  generally  to  the  Omaha  livestock 
market.  There,  on  account  of  scarcity  of  feeders  from  other  states, 
feeder  buyers  made  their  purchases  and  re-shipped  them  to  the 
country.  After  45-90  days  of  further  feeding  in  the  Corn  Belt  they 
were  re-graded  along  with  cattle  from  other  states  and  shipped  on  to 
the  Chicago  market.  Records  of  21  cars  sold  showed  that  these  steers 
ranged  from  1,175  to  1,500  pounds,  bringing  a  range  in  price  from 
$11.75  to  $13.00  per  cwt.   (weighted  average  =  $12.41). 

A  few  tail  ends  sold  down  to  $10.85.  While  the  Federal  and  State 
Market  News  Service  states  that  it  is  probable  that  some  of  these 
animals  were  not  of  California  origin,  it  is  believed  that  most  of 
them  were.  However,  local  comment  in  California  was  that  these 
weighty  steers  were  largely  Nevada,  Utah,  and  in  some  instances 
Wyoming-bred  stock  which  had  been  shipped  as  feeders  into  Califor- 
nia during  the  fall  of  1926  and  had  become  mixed  with  the  California 
steers. 

Shipments  of  calves  out  of  the  state  are  comparatively  unim- 
portant. 

Market  Outlets  for  California  Cattle. — California  fat  cattle  are 
subject  to  a  number  of  marketing  outlets,  the  diversity  of  which 
depends  upon  the  time  of  year,  and  the  situation  existing  with  regard 
to  cattle  supplies  in  the  United  States. 

The  two  principal  market  outlets  are  San  Francisco  and  Los 
Angeles  but  in  addition  to  these  larger  centers  of  population,  there 
are  numerous  communities  in  which  local  butchers  or  slaughterers 

42  The  information  relative  to  the  grass-cattle  movement  was  furnished  by 
W.  E.  Schneider,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Francisco,  Calif. 


102  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

maintain  establishments  and  conduct  some  form  of  packer  business. 
This  situation,  brought  about  by  the  large  area  of  the  state  and  the 
fact  that  centrally  located  packers  do  not  carry  on  so  extensive 
refrigerator  car  business  as  in  the  middle  west,  gives  to  California 
cattle  additional  outlets  uncommon  in  the  more  densely  populated 
areas  of  the  United  States.  The  sale  of  slaughter  cattle  to  "local 
butchers  and  packers"  constitutes  a  very  considerable  part  of  the 
total  slaughter  in  the  state  and  is  particularly  advantageous  to  small 
producers  having  less  than  carlots  of  cattle  read  for  market  at  one 
time. 

It  is  not  uncommon  for  California  cattle  to  be  placed  in  feed  lots 
at  mid-western  points  where  they  are  subject  to  intensive  feeding. 
This  is  particularly  true  in  years  when  cattle  supplies  are  limited  in 
the  corn  belt  and  when  a  large  corn  crop  is  available  for  feeding 
purposes.  In  1928,  a  strong  feeder  demand  from  the  corn  belt  states 
relieved  the  pressure  in  California.  The  feed  lots  of  the  middle  west 
take  the  California  grass  cattle,  especially  the  heavier  end,  when 
favorable  feeding  conditions  exist.  Cattle  considered  as  ready  for 
the  block  in  California  are  most  in  demand  for  this  purpose  and 
shipments  eastward  usually  take  place  during  the  summer  months. 

California  grass  fat  cattle  also  find  a  market  outlet  in  the  middle 
west,  going  to  the  block  without  further  feeding.  Considerable 
numbers  are  sent  to  Ogden  and  Salt  Lake  City  just  as  soon  as  feed 
lot  cattle  are  cleaned  up  in  Utah.  As  a  rule  these  cattle  are  disposed 
of  by  the  middle  of  April.  From  this  time  until  the  middle  of  June 
the  California  cattle  are  received  rather  regularly.  Northern  ship- 
ments out  of  the  state  to  Oregon  and  Washington  for  slaughter  pur- 
poses are  common  too,  during  the  grass  cattle  season. 

Available  markets  during  the  period  of  heaviest  production  or 
turn-off  (summer  months)  play  an  important  part  in  the  stability  of 
Pacific  Coast  price  levels.  The  need  for  additional  marketing  oppor- 
tunities is  becoming  increasingly  evident  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
importations  of  feeder  cattle  are  placed  on  grass  in  California  each 
year  and  these  are  so  located  that  the  great  majority  become  ready 
for  market  at  about  the  same  time,  seasonal  distribution  of  cattle  for 
market  is,  therefore,  an  important  problem  of  the  California  cattle- 
man. Evidence  of  its  recognition  is  seen  in  the  cooperative  marketing 
movement  instituted  in  1923  which  is  now  an  important  factor  in 
regulating  and  distributing  seasonable  supplies. 


Buii.461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


103 


o  ^  a  o  2  3  3 

> 

Ci  P    ST  2    *    ffi    ™-  -• 
S"  S    »    »    <    a"  52    5 

H 
o 

y>    5" 

o 
p 

Hi 

P     : 

o 

3 

p 

a 

if  o 

5' 

2  o 

p 

o 

a 

to 

•*■ 

CO      ^J                  *      rfk     M      M 

CO 

»MMl|k»J^lMOl 

to 

co 

»IDMMO)»l|kM 

CO 

^J 

InH^OSCOOOOCOCn 

oo 

^J 

CO 

pi 

-a  >->■ 

OS 

to 

Ml 

rfs.  -J 

tiki 

Or 

CO    o 

OS 

to 

K- 

bOMM^^HlOH 

CO 

OS 

JJOi^CnMMMifr 

o 

~>00h-*COCOi*».COCn 

en 

CO 

W©COOS©4».>->OS 

h- 

o 

»-»          >*>■  to 

CO 

M    CO             tO    CO     »*»• 

to 

tO    tO     00    >*>-    CO    to 

CO 

OS 

CO 

S    til   o    *   OO    *> 

to 

to 

OS 

-     Ol     M     O     M     W 

H 

o 

Cn 

-»co~acocnost**-to 

to 

lOOSOSCnCOl— 'OO— 1 

£ 

~J 

M^a^jOh->^acoco 

«-h 

P 

00 

Cn 

l_l 

p 

to 

1* 

ifk 

4*. 

"aj 

to 

CO 

to 

K-     O0 

rt> 

l— 

O    1— 

g 

to 

p 

CO 

CO    o 

~J 

CO    >*~ 

,_l 

_i 

> 

OS 

_!    H*    i_»    O 

t) 

OS 

o>   i-»   to   to   Cn   os 

oo 

Ji 

»    o    <o    O    00    H 

*- 

t_i 

o 

tO                OS 

K 

»-J 

CO    *>    CO    to    OS 

p 

Cn 

OS    oo    to    to    OS    CO 

•< 

oo 

H    0O    00    CO    H    s 

- 

_     M     _                M 

&H 

e 

CO 

£ 

OO    >—    00    CO    ^1    CO 

3 
0> 

to 

aoicnoiuooooM 

•vl 

CO 

£CnONOitoa><o 

to 

e_i 

V 

—    l«s> 

co   to   os 

c^ 

CO 

OS    to 

CO    oo    to 

«< 

h- 

—     Cn 

Cn   ^   co 

to 

_ 

► 

© 

* 

CO 

a 

CO 

Cn    OO 

to 

era 

Ol 

OS    © 

CO 

m 

0> 

•o 

£ 

OS 
00 

O 

o 

to 

to 

Cn 

en 

2 

to 

h_t 

o 

IO 

to 

CO 

< 

•VI 

J-J 

~J 

to 

0 

a 

►&. 

a 

--J 

^1 

104 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Freight  Rates. — With  the  surplus  cattle  population  and  the  long 
distances  from  markets  in  the  mountain  states,  transportation  costs 
are  of  vital  importance.  For  a  large  portion  of  this  area  at  the 
present  time  freight  rates  to  the  Pacific  Coast  are  lower  than  those 
to  the  middle-western  markets.  The  dividing  line  of  equal  freight 
rates  to  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  on  one  hand  and  to  Kansas 
City  and  Omaha  on  the  other  is  shown  in  figure  2,  page  12.  While 
the  California  producer  has  a  distinct  advantage  in  his  own  market, 
the  distance  to  middle  western  markets  is  such  that  considerable 
expense  is  involved  in  sending  any  seasonal  surplus  to  them. 


FOREIGN  TRADE  IN  BEEF  AND  BEEF  CATTLE 

The  Share  of  the  Pacific  Coast  in  Foreign  Trade. — The  Pacific 
Coast  is  of  little  significance  in  the  beef  export  trade.  Puget  Sound 
has  exported  a  larger  aggregate  tonnage  of  beef  than  any  of  the  other 
western  ports,  although  movements  from  all  of  the  customs  districts 
have  been  erratic.   „ 

TABLE  51 
Exports  of  Beef  from  the  Customs  Districts  of  the  Pacific  Coast, 

1910-1927* 
(Thousand  pounds,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Fiscal 
years 

San 
Francisco 

Southern 
California** 

Oregon 

Wash- 
ington 

1910 
1911 

291 
178 
1,122 
245 
98 
574 
183 
590 
205 

75 
316 
607 
265 
157 
170 
148 
261 
148 
113 

3 
3 

27 

85 

588 
273 

1912 

405 

1913 

295 

1914 

102 

1915 

6 
9 
8 
17 

13 
39 

123 

5 

6 

82 

58 

186 
86 

124 

101 

1916 

186 

1917 

1,618 

1918 

646 

Calendar 
years 
1918 

64 

1919 

200 

1920 

1,248 

1921 

190 

1922 

88 

1923 

178 

1924 

41 

1925 

45 

1926 

36 

1927 

123 

*  Excluding  Alaska.     **  Includes  San  Diego  and  Los  Angeles  Districts. 
Sources  of  data:  1910-1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  U.  S.  1910-1926. 

1927  information  to  authors  from  Dept. Commerce. 
Note.— U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce  quotes  beef,  fresh;  veal,  fresh;  beef  and  veal,  pickled  and  cured; 
and  beef,  canned.   The  above  are  the  summations  of  the  four  classifications  for  each  district. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


105 


Excess  Imports  and  Exports  of  Cattle  (Converted  to  Beef  Equivalents), 
United  States,  1904-1927 


Excess 

Imports 

Excess  Exports 

1904r 
1905 
1906 
1907 

764 
689 
753 
603 
447 
254 
137 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

115 

1912. 

7 

1913 
1914 
1915 

W9 
461 
147 

1916 

■ 

56 

1917 

42 

■ 

145 
372 
270 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 
192Z 

70 

" 

4 

1923 

91 

1924 

55 

■ 

19Z5 

/ 

1926 

74 

■ 

1927 
1928 

68 

■ 

700  600  SCO  400  300  200  100     O     100    200  300  400  500  600    700 
Aft/Z/ons  of  founds 


'•■  Fig.  28.— Since  1912,  with  the  exception  of  1922,  the  United  States  has  im- 
ported a  larger  number  of  cattle  than  have  been  exported.  '  Many  of  these  animals 
have  been  feeder  cattle  imported  from  Canada  and  Mexico.  It  is  likely  that 
excess  of  imports  will  continue. 

(Data  from  table  52.) 


106  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

San  Francisco  has  been  the  largest  export  district  for  California 
(table  52),  but  of  late  there  has  been  some  slight  tendency  for  the 
southern  California  district  to  claim  a  larger  share.  The  two  dis- 
tricts show  decided  differences  in  the  products  shipped  out,  San  Fran- 
cisco exports  being  largely  canned  goods,  while  Los  Angeles  exports 
consist  mainly  of  fresh  beef.  The  latter  exports  are  for  the  navy 
trade,  practically  none  being  sent  to  foreign  markets  for  consumption, 
while  the  former  represent  eastern  canned  goods,  since  meat  canning 
is  not  carried  on  to  an  appreciable  extent  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  The 
Puget  Sound  offerings  have  been  largely  in  fresh  beef. 

Unfortunately,  import  statistics  through  Pacific  Coast  customs 
districts  have  been  combined  under  the  designation  " Meats"  and  an 
analysis  of  these  data  does  not  give  results  which  can  be  used  in  this 
publication. 

Live-Cattle  Exports. — Exports  of  live  cattle  from  the  United 
States  have  always  been  predominantly  for  slaughter.  From  the 
close  of  the  Civil  War  until  1904  exports  increased  in  volume,  the 
peak  of  shipments  being  reached  in  the  latter  year  with  exports  of 
593,409  head  (table  53).  Approximately  65  per  cent  of  these  exports 
went  to  the  United  Kingdom.  From  1906  on,  there  was  a  rapid 
decline,  until  at  the  beginning  of  the  World  War  exports  had  vir- 
tually ceased.  Live-animal  exports  were  rapidly  replaced  by  chilled 
and  frozen  beef  shipped  chiefly  from  Argentina  and  Australasia. 
Since  the  War  there  have  been  considerable  shipments  into  Mexico, 
Cuba,  and  the  West  Indies.  Exports  of  dairy-bred  animals  into  Can- 
ada and  purebred  beef  animals  into  South  America,  together  with 
shipments  into  Mexico  for  purposes  of  restocking,  have  formed  an 
appreciable  item  in  the  relatively  small  exports  of  recent  years. 

Live-Cattle  Imports. — With  the  exception  of  purebred  stock  brought 
chiefly  from  Great  Britain  for  breeding  purposes,  it  has  been  imprac- 
ticable to  import  live  cattle  except  from  Canada  and  Mexico.  Until 
1915  the  bulk  of  these  animals,  predominantly  stockers  and  feeders, 
were  received  from  the  latter  country.  Over  80  per  cent  of  the 
imports  of  live  cattle  since  the  close  of  the  World  War,  however, 
originated  in  Canada.  (See  p.  118.)  With  the  restocking  of  Mexican 
ranches  an  increase  in  live-cattle  exports  from  the  south  may  be 
expected. 


BUL.461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


107 


United  States  Balance  of  Trade  in  Cattle  and  Beef,  1904-1927 


Excess  Imports 


Excess  Exports 


700    600   300    WO  300  ZOO  100    O     100  BOO    300  400   300  600   700 
M////ons  of  Pounds 


Fig.  29. — In  the  above  figure  cattle  are  converted  to  beef  equivalents.  From 
1906  to  1912  there  was  a  rapid  decline  in  exports  followed  by  a  period  of  increas- 
ing imports.  Exports  exceeded  imports  temporarily  during  the  World  War.  Since 
1920  the  United  States  has  tended  to  import  rather  than  export  beef. 

(Data  from  table  53.) 


108 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  52 


General  Imports  and  Domestic  Exports  of  Live  Cattle,  United  States, 

1885-1927 

(Head  of  cattle;  thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Fiscal 

General 

Domestic 

Fiscal 

General 

Domestic 

Fiscal 

General 

Domestic 

year 

imports 

exports 

year 

imports 

exports 

year 

imports 

exports 

1885 

105 

136 

1900 

181 

397 

1915 

538 

5 

1886 

78 

119 

1901 

146 

459 

1916 

439 

21 

1887 

87 

106 

1902 

96 

393 

1917 

375 

13 

1888 

64 

140 

1903 

66 

402 

1918 

294 

18 

1889 

62 

206 

1904 

16 

593 

1919 

440 

42 

1890 

31 

395 

1905 

28 

568 

1920 

575 

83 

1891 

12 

375 

1906 

29 

584 

1921 

330 

146 

1892 

2 

395 

1907 

32 

423 

1922 

152 

155 

1893 

3 

287 

1908 

92 

349 

1923 

252 

61 

1894 

2 

359 

1909 

139 

208 

1924 

155 

33 

1895 

150 

.   332 

1910 

196 

139 

1925 

136 

106 

1896 

218 

372 

1911 

183 

150 

1926 

215 

36 

1897 

329 

392 

1912 

318 

106 

1927 

267 

21 

1898 

292 

439 

1913 

422 

25 

1899 

200 

389 

1914 

868 

18 

Sources  of  data:  1885-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Statistics  of  cattle,  calves,  beef,  veal, 
hides  and  skins.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat.  Bui.  20: 106, 107.  1927.  1926-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Monthly 
Summary  of  Foreign  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  Pt.  2:  118,  130.    1927. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF    THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


109 


TABLE  53 

United  States  Balance  of  Trade  in  Cattle  and  Beef,  1900-1927 

(Thousand  pounds,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Excess  of  cattle 

Excess  of  cattle  and  beef 

Year 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

1900 

172,657 

221,166 

197,853 

216,471 

350,010 

330,442 

339,929 

242,037 

174,936 

71,977 

10,071 

21,444 

606,579 

1901 

681,653 

1902 

615,482 

1903 

601,146 

1904 

764,714 

1905 

689,415 

1906 

753,492 

1907 

602,733 

1908 

447,039 

1909 

254,414 

1910 

136,774 

1911 

114,681 

1912 

55,978 
144,602 
316,009 
240,244 
191,639 
162,135 
124,197 
179,170 
217,030 

82,800 

7,380 

1913 

108,771 
461,271 
147,205 

1914 

1915 

1916 

57,601 

1917 

145,411 

1918 

371,947 

1919 

269,891 

1920 

42,355 
69,574 

1921 

1922 

1,350 

4,137 

1923 

91,350 
55,350 
14,200 
80,550 
79,620 

91,350 
55,350 

1924 

1925 

909 

1926 

74,279 
67,775 

1927 

Note.— Imports  of  live  cattle  are  converted  into  terms  of  beef  they  represent  as  follows:  1900-1914, 
375  pounds  per  head;  1915-1927,  450  pounds  per  head. 

Exports  of  live  cattle  are  converted  into  terms  of  beef  they  represent  as  follows:  1900-1914,  600  pounds 
per  head;  1915-1927,  450  pounds  per  head. 

Sources  of  data:  1900-1924,  U.  S.  Tariff  Commission.  The  cattle  industries  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  1-51.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.  C,  1925.  1925-1927,  computations  by  authors 
from  current  statistics  in  Department  of  Commerce,  Monthly  Reports  of  Foreign  Commerce  of  the 
United  States. 


110 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


of  "3 

s  § 

d    5    2* 

H         M 


U    o 


ft    2 

2  & 


PQ 


"3 

0 

In 

O 
Xt 

a 

3 

948 

381 

1,023 

4,229 

180,137 

184,491 

71,102 

15,217 

25,452 

23,339 
38,462 
50,182 
32,378 
36,694 
19,356 
18.104 
15,870 
20.106 
42,574 

03 
O 

<v 
0 
(1 

Ph 

1    O)    ■<»    N    «    N             (OOOlflWHtO^OOO 
:    O    OO    (O    O    ■*             CO    i— l>Ot—    CM    t-h    ~H    ©    CM 

:    tM    <£>'    th    0    ■*           eOHft^O'-HcioOO 

|     CO                H     N     H                CM     »-H 

0) 

a 

3 

:     CM    O    I~»    r»<     i-H             CO«OCT>OCOOCO<M»-ICO 

:   cm   cm   ©  00   r--         NiaooiininNrtTii 

:    OO    (O    M    h    CD             «C    -"St1     1^    CM    •*!< 

:   r^  cm"  00"  co"  co          iflifl   n 

|      IO      ~H 

fl 
83 

11 

2  si 

oa 

0 

CJ 

Ph 

:    OO    t~    O    a> 

'     -*<     OO    O     O 

'OOOO 

ilDlDNHNOlOM 
jXHOlOiO^NN 

:                                  ^H     CM     -H 

Ih 

CD 
Xi 
S 

O!    <N    lO    M 
lO     O                i-H 
OO    O 

noinosoiNoo 

■*fCO©©00O5-<*<CO 

I^OOlOOiOOllNTtlN 

N    N    H    N    W    N    H 

c3 

s| 

oh 

fl 

<u 
0 
(-1 

A*" 

CO    OO 
O    CO 

.-H      lO 

CO-*             ©NOOOJOOrtMOOrtOl 
COCM             HCSOOOrtCNOlOlOlN 

i-H    CM             HCiJ^nilNHN^lO 

u 

CD 

a 

3 

OO    CM 
»o    OO 

00  •<* 

C>      O 

i-H03             Oi»'*MO'*OON'* 

oco         coN^oinaiicooio 

CMiO             CM>0-<**-hi0C0C0O05<M 
wi    CM    .-h"    1-4    .-h"            CM*"    CM*    CM 

>> 

fl  03 
5  3 

fl 
0> 

OJ 

Ph 

OO    OO    CO    OO    CO             NU5»HtB»<j(lOTtl 

n  ^  in  m  0         ©<M-HTfa>ocNooo 
•■#    »-    ©    ©    ©           ©©cM--i»0©cM©<-i 

Ih 

S 

3 

M    N    N    N    M             cOTt<©CD©t-HlOc005 
©     ©     Oi     OO     <— 1                -H05CT21002COOCOO 

Ol      OO      H                                                                O      ■*     H      H     •*      H      N 

m"  n                                         ^h         cm 

CM     ^H 

c3 

11 

"3 

C 

CD 
O 

OJ 

Ph 

OOCOOOOOCR             COOOCOlOlOiOOiCOO 
r- c    OO    O    O    CO             NOOONNNSO'* 

CO    ©    •<»<    »0    >-H             *— c©-<*<CO©I^©CMt>- 
CO    t^    t^    ^h                      rt                               CO             CM 

S 

3 

1000CO--H                rtHOOHMHWDW 
N    OO    OO     Ol    CO             CMCOCM*O©©COCMO0 
N    CD    CD    N    ■*             tDN^OHiONnif 

Ol    O    CN    m"                     CM             eq    rt    rt    rt    w             -H 

0   n   m                                                  >-h 

03 

is 

[t,  c3 

c 

OJ 

0 

CD 

Ph 

■^OCOOCn             OONO^OOOlOONiflTll 

OO    CO    O    ©    "5             OOONN'fNOOinNN 

OO    OO    B    M    H             COO-*-HCO»-lCMOi0500 

.-H    CO    OO             lOOONOOlCNlOCDlOOO 

0 

525   1 

0  m  00  »  00         o-^oocninotnr-i^o 

CM    ©    -H    CO    CO             i-H(MOOCOCMOt^Tt<(MOO 

01  M    Ol    r|(    N             Oi    »-h    •«*<    «tfl    CO    OO    «3    ©    03    O- 

m  10   a>  02  ©         ^HNcoctnoiHMN 

T-Hr-H                        CM              i-HCOCOCM^H^H              »_(rHCO 

3 

0 

PS 

£    • 

3    . 

bfi     i 
fl 

fl 

OJ 

u 
oa 

V 

1 

2 
S 

SB 

3 

CO 

2 

4 

3 

10 
a 

CO 

0) 

a 

00 

s 

1 

fl 
JS 

0 

cc 

a 

C7: 

0 
S 

-M 
& 

S 

CO 

1 

CM 

ce 

CM 

CT 

CM 

cn 

-3  t3  ■*  a 


8  1 1>  1 

•°S3gh° 

tJ  S      •    flj 

2  o  S  -° 

3  <-<   2  ^3 

o    • •  -    c 


a 


^3«>  s 

.2  cf  .2  d 

"»     fl)  o 

>2  §  - 

c3    ^"    £  ,• 

2  *  £  « 

CO    o»   T3  M 


2  Q 

£3  go) 

^-    2    U    N 

S  rt  *>  * 
1  2  Q  « 


C    "S    '""    iS 
«     M    g    S 

t  v  .s 

ft^  §^ 
1 5  ■§  * 


a  a 


a 

3 

en 

0 

C3 
CD 
> 

0 

a 

tx 

CD 
-3 

oa 

T3 

„ 

jj 

G 

0 

03 

ta 

0 

Si 

CD 

^ 

^a 

0 
(-. 

CD 

ci 
C 

3 

O 

CD 
3 

£ 
0 

CD 

a 

03 
M 

f  ) 

03 

U  Z 

a 

•-a 

"3 

0 

Q 

fl* 

03 

a 

CO 

cvi 

c 

CD 

u 

O 
0) 

a 

OO 
CI 

"0 

~J 

-X 

3 

3 

0 

2 

— 

0 

CM 

a 

09 

-ti 

c 

L  4 

eg 

0 
d 

03 

3 

c3 

CD 

0 

CO 

| 

O 

\M 

n 

||! 

CD 

CD 

w 

0 

-^ 

H 
O 

3 

O 

05 

0 
00 

2   « 

BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


111 


M 

*   a 

to  ° 

W    o 

^  o 

CD 

n 

§ » 


in 

r^  ■»*< 

ITS 

^ 

_ 

-H     OO 

3s 

T 

US 

CO     •«* 

R 

en 

m 

a 

1- 

CO 

■  O 

iQ 

1^    U0 

p 

CO     CO 

IO 

t--    00 

<4 

t^    CO 

o  a 

CM    -H 

o 

Ob 

Ol 

on, 

CO 

CO 

cm 

a>  co 

Ol 

CM    CM 

tv. 

en 

sti 

co 

Ol 

Ol 

** 

CI 

CO 

CO    IO 

*^ 

Tf<      |-» 

M 

_ 

■* 

as 

o>  r^. 

■^ 

en 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

rrj 

m 

>n 

OS 

8 

'u 

< 

feg 

oo 

OS    CM 

■-" 

CO 

>o 

-- 

1  - 

•Jj 

(»• 

•* 

i-H    CM 

^ 

Ol 

o 

CO 

O  O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CI 

CO 

m 

~r 

eo 

1 

CO 

O    00 

rf, 

o» 

--    CO 

'.O 

Ol 

m 

in 

en 

CO 

o 
H 

p 

-H      kO 

CI 

~. 

ro 

CO 

oo 

Is. 

Ol 

rjn 

■n 

os 

CO 
CM 

I- 

CO    co 

CM 

CC 

~r 

BO 

83 

^ 

CO    CO 

on 

Ol 

_, 

^ 

M 

^ 

co 

^ 

(M 

Ol 

U0 

s 

a 

9 

o 

O 

Cl,  « 

o 

^H    CM 

d  o 

o 

O 

d 

O 

d 

d 

d 

■•" 

H_ 

O 

o 

d 

o 
d 

o 
d 

d 

o 
d 

1- 

Q 

r~-   m 

eo 

o» 

e 

-t 

OS 

r- 

Ol 

Tt< 

OS 

U0 

CO 

CO 

o 
H 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

Ol 

" 

o 

OS     CO 

^_ 

M 

O] 

T* 

oo 

■* 

^, 

eo 

on 

IO 

Ol 

on 

pH 

oJ 

3 

0)    fl 

00 

■"*<     CM 

o 

or^ 

TJ< 

-* 

f^ 

Oh  g 

o 

O    CM 

- 

o 

d 

d 

<= 

d 

o 

o 

d 

o 

- 

- 

d 

d 

d 

£fe 

IO 

O    ■"*! 

_ 

OS 

on 

or 

CO 

_ 

>o 

en 

f. 

H 

m   m 

21 

Ol 

>n 

OS 

CM 

in 

Ol 

or. 

on 

CO 

1-^ 

** 

T}<      T* 

^* 

CO 

«* 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

CO 

-ct< 

<# 

Ol 

fcfl 

•* 

Os   o 

t. 

rt 

* 

^^ 

e 

OS 

CM 

CB 

tti 

^ 

~e 

CO 

r- 

on 

CO 

en 

t- 

— ' 

— 1 

oo 

oo 

>— l 

—< 

^H 

"  o 

r~ 

Ol 

.o 

CO 

m 

-f 

r-Tj 

_ 

cn 

CM 

CM 

m 

t- 

ojio 

h5y 

^ 

_ 

^ 

CO 

6    K 

5  <u 

m     OS 

co 

CO 

~ 

CD 

OS 

CTS 

t^ 

O0    lO 

Ol 

c» 

Ol 

m 

t» 

on 

eo 

so 

Ol 

CM 

SB 

O! 

o 

co 

t^. 

CO 

•^ 

*"* 

■"' 

^ 

^ 

*"* 

S3fl 

CO 

CO    t-- 

en 

OS 

m 

o 

^ 

m 

OJ 

on 

^ 

■* 

Ol 

»o 

Ttl     CM 

co 

O 

00 

CO 

t^ 

Ttl 

— i 

* 

CO 

't1 

cm 

oo 

*>  a 

CM  g 

_< 

t-»    CO 

ci 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

en 

■"*< 

^| 

-f 

CO 

_l 

CO 

CO 

on 

Ol 

CO 

uo    CO 

oi 

CO 

&H 
Q& 

CM 

CM    m 

Cn 

p 

_ 

Ol 

lC 

^ 

in 

en 

on 

CO 

_ 

OS 

,in 

t^ 

O 

r~ 

m 

m 

o 

CO    CO 

a> 

o 

n" 

CO 

o 

Ol 

on 

m 

Ol 

CO 

CO 

SB 

os 

«5    <M 

CO 

CO 

•"< 

"* 

CO 

nj 

oo    t>- 

^ 

^ 

c3 

S3  a 

*•■ 

O    CM 

CO 

U3 

o 

CO 

t^    CO 

CM 

CO 

O 

O 

OS 

m 

<* 

m 

00 

Ph§ 

CM 

lO    CO 

en 

O 

PH 

o 

o  o 

o 

O 

CM 

co 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

00 

Hoc 

l>.    »« 

C3S 

_ 

CO 

O) 

CC 

CO 

CM 

^ 

Ol 

r^ 

r~ 

Ol 

en 

00    OS 

OS 

Tt< 

r^ 

en 

-OS 

CO 

US 

•>• 

»Ji 

3S 

O: 

r^ 

SB 

CO 

-*  ■<*< 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

Ol 

o 

>-H 

rt 

""" 

Ol 

CM 

OJ 

Ol 

Ol 

Ol 

CM 

Sjfl 

1ft 

oo  m 

on 

CO 

lO 

Ol 

o  ■* 

^ 

o 

^ 

h. 

02 

en 

o 

Ol 

-^ 

5*8 

Is" 

CO 

oo 

CO     t~ 

co 

-H 

"■< 

■^f 

&Hg 

CO 

00 

^H 

_ 

_l 

r^ 

I-- 

on 

en 

oo 

'H 

rt 

rt 

Ol 

Ol 

Ol 

co 

is 

■«*< 

ce 

f 

^ 

s 

crs 

_ 

CO 

CO     CM 

on 

OS     CO 

CO 

*H 

—    00 

t~ 

O 

»o 

m 

gq 

02 

SB 

CO 

00    »- 

CO 

CO 

U0 

»o 

io  eo 

CO 

CO 

(«■ 

r- 

oo 

t^ 

l>- 

oo 

«3  a 

^ 

_, 

— 

s 

00 

o   ■«*< 

OB 

t^ 

o 

CO 

(M    O 

o 

O 

CM 

■* 

Ol 

O) 

Tj. 

CO 

o 

d<g 

T* 

CO    O 

IS 

— 

^H 

e 

<=>    O 

o 

O 

o 

pH 

_H 

— 

—I 

— . 

— 

c 

** 

** 

"^ 

P 

CO 

f^ 

CO 

r-. 

«r 

r^ 

00 

o 

CO 

00    CM 

t^ 

i- 

■f     CO 

o-. 

O: 

Ol 

■rt« 

^ 

CO 

CO    l>. 

in  co 

t~ 

to 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CO 

1  t- 

Sfl 

Ph  g 

•«    r- 

^ 

_ 

f. 

— 

^^ 

i-o-S 

o 

CO    CM 

CO 

o 

to 

CO 

«~ ' 

00 

a 

^^ 

O 

o 

t- 

oo 

CO 

*  §  2 

H   OT3 

U3 

_ 

_ 

Ol 

■rt< 

m 

Ol 

■a 

m 

o 

Ol 

Ol 

en 

CO 

S  fe 

CO 

CO    >o 

s 

■o 

r-- 

a 

oo  m 

S 

s 

a 

crs 

CO 

CO 

- 

r^ 

OO 

1- 

r- 

-r 

Ol 

o 

CO 

IO 

—  a 

03 

g 

"5 

iO    IO 

CO 

■^ 

■«*< 

m 

t»    CO 

U0 

o 

CO 

I- 

r- 

CO 

co 

»■ 

SSfl 

^g 

OD 

Ol 

03 

„ 

on 

§  1 

CO 

03 
c3 

a 

c3 

o 

co 

CM    0O 

CM    CO 

co 

'JO 

d 

t^    «0 

d  t^ 

oo 

CO 
CO 

m 

-r 
o 

o 

m 

oo 
co 

co 

, 

t-    — i 

^ 

r^   -h 

1*. 

oi 

Ol 

00 

Nfe 

O    CO 

CO 

3 

r- 

Ol 

CO    OS 

-f 

CO 

* 

Ol 

■* 

Ol 

CO 

CM 

CO 

1- 

f 

H 

^•° 

•^<         T^ 

)  -<t< 

rt 

4)    M° 

N 

03 

I 

>>  C^  O 

.o 

ce 

r^  oo 

<*  oo 

m 

CO    1-^ 

"3  "2  e  2 
S  c  3 

OS     OS 

- 

-. 

ex 

S) 

V    OS 

ca 

-- 

09 

-- 

oa 

36 

SB 

OS     OS 

£ 

0 

d  s 

1  i 

I  ° 

S  a 

0)  01 

-3  Q 


3 

fl 
03 

fl 

OS 

Mi 

■S 

■a 

^ 

E 

3 

e§ 

c  Tl 

C 
03 

'^    sO 

cd  r- 
03    •• 

8 

21 

-J  .  v> 

s3  ^    m 

>  s  ^ 

/■.  —    - 

CO  OS     cp 

J  CSO 


112  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Exports  of  Beef. — Owing  to  the  numerous  products  of  beef  cattle, 
such  as  canned,  cured,  and  fresh  beef,  oleo  oil,  oleo  stock,  oleomar- 
garine, tallow,  and  stearin,  which  are  often  placed  in  various  classi- 
fications, it  is  desirable  to  use  comparable  data  for  series  of  either 
imports  or  exports.  In  tables  54  and  55  beef  and  veal  include  (1) 
fresh  beef,  (2)  fresh  veal,  (3)  pickled  and  cured  beef  and  veal,  and 
(4)  canned  beef. 

The  first  shipments  of  frozen  beef  sent  to  England  did  not  meet 
with  popular  approval  and  only  with  the  advent  of  refrigeration 
facilities  on  steamers  did  this  trade  begin  to  assume  large  propor- 
tions. During  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  beef 
exports  from  the  United  States  increased  rapidly.  A  peak  was 
reached  in  1901  when  the  exports  of  beef  and  veal  reached  a  total 
of  461,296,000  pounds.  From  1901  until  the  outbreak  of  the  War 
this  trade  dwindled  until  during  the  fiscal  years  1913  and  1914  the 
average  amounted  to  only  36,500,000  pounds.  During  this  period  the 
proportion  of  fresh  beef  and  veal  declined.  Over  90  per  cent  of  the 
exports  went  to  the  United  Kingdom,  a  market  which  was  readily 
supplied  by  the  rapidly  expanding  surplus  of  South  America  and 
Australasia.  During  the  War,  American  exports  of  fresh  and  pre- 
pared beef  again  became  of  importance  in  the  European  supply.  A 
new  record  of  521,844,000  pounds  of  beef  exports  was  set  during  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1918.  Fresh  beef  again  assumed  a  rela- 
tively more  important  place  in  exports.  European  demand  broke 
abruptly  in  1919  and  1920  and  since  1921  exports  have  been  small. 
These  exports  have  been  sent  largely  to  Newfoundland,  Labrador,  and 
to  the  remainder  of  North  America  (exclusive  of  Canada).  The 
smaller  and  somewhat  specialized  trade  in  canned,  pickled,  and  other 
cured  beef  has  been  better  maintained  than  that  in  fresh  beef. 

Imports  of  Beef  and  Veal. — On  account  of  the  comparatively 
limited  segregation  of  beef4mports  it  is  impossible  to  accurately  gauge 
anything  but  the  imports  of  fresh  beef  and  veal.  Prior  to  1912  im- 
ports into  the  United  States  were  insignificant.  Increased  production 
in  South  America  and  more  or  less  temporary  shortages  in  the  United 
States  made  for  large  imports  during  1913,  1914,  and  1915  (see  table 
54),  Argentine,  Uruguay,  Australia,  and  Canada  supplying  the  bulk 
of  the  imports.  After  the  War,  imports  again  increased,  but  they 
have  not  assumed  large  proportions.  An  increase  of  30  per  cent  over 
the  corresponding  1927  period  is  shown  in  the  total  imports  of  beef 
and  veal  into  the  United  States  for  the  period  January-May,  1928. 
The  heavy  increase  is  due  entirely  to  the  result  of  increased  imports 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF   CATTLE   INDUSTRY  113 

from  New  Zealand,  encouraged  by  the  unusually  favorable  market 
for  beef  prevailing  in  the  United  States  during  the  past  year.  Since 
1918  Canada  has  been  the  source  of  over  50  per  cent  of  the  imports. 
Disease  conditions  in  some  of  the  larger  exporting  countries  have 
been  such  that  importations  from  them  to  this  country  have  been 
prohibited. 

Exports  and  Imports  of  Beef  Fats. — Exports  of  beef  fats,  i.e., 
tallow  and  its  derivatives,  oleo  oil  and  oleo  stearin,  have  been  more 
important  from  the  standpoint  of  both  quantity  and  value  since  the 
war.  Shipments  of  these  products  declined  steadily  during  the  period 
1910-1919.  During  1919,  a  marked  increase  in  exports  took  place  and 
since  then  beef  fats  have  averaged  about  135,000,000  pounds  a  year 
with  a  mean  value  of  $15,000,000. 

The  Balance  of  Trade  in  Cattle  and  Beef. — In  attempting  to  make 
calculations  of  total  imports  and  exports  (table  53)  the  authors  have 
used  the  methods  employed  by  the  United  States  Tariff  Commission. 
No  account  is  taken  in  these  calculations  of  animal  fats,  and  in 
addition,  the  lack  of  segregation  of  certain  imports,  undoubtedly 
makes  for  errors.  Prior  to  1907  the  United  States  practically 
dominated  the  export  trade  in  beef  and  cattle  (figs.  28  and  29). 
During  the  next  five  years  these  exports  virtually  disappeared  and 
from  1913  to  1915  inclusive,  a  balance  appeared  in  favor  of  imports. 
Under  the  stimulus  of  war-time  prices  and  overseas  demand,  the  pro- 
duction and  export  of  beef  and  cattle  increased  sharply.  With  the 
cessation  of  foreign  demand  and  a  realignment  of  prices  came  an 
import  balance  in  1920  and  1921.  During  1922  imports  and  exports 
were  almost  evenly  balanced.  Since  1923  there  has  been  a  slight 
excess  of  imports.  With  a  more  complete  segregation  of  imports  the 
import  balance  in  table  53  would  be  slightly  larger. 


THE    INTERNATIONAL   TRADE    IN    BEEF   AND    BEEF    PRODUCTS 

The  types  of  beef  and  beef  products  originating  in  different  coun- 
tries and  the  demands  for  them  are  somewhat  dissimilar.  Under  the 
term  beef  and  beef  products  is  included,  in  addition  to  fresh,  chilled, 
and  frozen  meat,  such  by-products  as  oleo  oil  and  tallow.  A  segrega- 
tion such  as  has  been  used  in  the  discussion  of  imports  and  exports  of 
the  United  States  is  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  use  in  the  discussion 
of  the  international  trade. 

Argentina  is  the  dominant  factor  in  the  world  trade  in  beef  and 
beef  products,  furnishing  between  50  and  65  per  cent  of  all  such 


114 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


exports.  Uruguay  ranks  next  to  Argentina,  contributing  about  10 
per  cent  of  the  total  exports.  Australia,  New  Zealand,  Brazil,  the 
Netherlands,  and  the  United  States  make  considerable  contributions 
to  the  export  trade. 

On  the  import  side,  the  demands  of  Great  Britain  absorb  over  60 
per  cent  of  the  surplus  of  the  world,  while  Germany  and  France 
combined  take  an  additional  20  per  cent.  Outside  of  the  countries  of 
western  Europe,  Japan  and  Cuba  are  the  only  important  importing 
nations.  Imports  into  the  former  country  have  increased  rapidly.  In 
1926  these  amounted  to  74,694,000  pounds  against  an  average  of 
9,002,000  for  the  period  1911-1913.  Generally  speaking,  the  world 
trade  in  beef  and  its  products  was  approximately  50  per  cent  larger  in 
1925  and  1926  than  it  was  during  the  three  years  1911-1913. 


TABLE  56 
Estimated  Number  of  Cattle  in  the  World,  1909-1913  and  1921-1925 

(Thousands) 


Division 

Average  number 

Per  cent 
increase  or 

1909-1913 

1921-1925 

decrease 

76,000 

80,000 
133,000 

27,000 
210,000 

14,000 
541,000 

86,000 
102,000 
132,000 

46,000 
245,000 

17,000 
628,000 

+13.2 

South  America 

+27.5 

Europe 

-  0.8 

Africa 

+70.4 

+16.7 

Oceania 

+21.4 

The  World 

+16.1 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.   The  world  situation  in  cattle  and  beef.   Foreign 
Crops  and  Markets  15  (7) :  219.   1927. 


THE   FOREIGN   SITUATION    IN   CATTLE   AND   BEEF 

Estimates  made  of  the  average  number  of  cattle  in  the  world 
during  1921-1925  total  628,000,000,  an  increase  of  16.1  per  cent  over 
the  average  for  the  pre-war  years  1909-1913.  Numbers  increased  most 
rapidly  in  Africa  (70.4  per  cent  increase),  South  America  (27.5  per 
cent  increase),  and  Oceania  (21.4  per  cent  increase).  Numbers  in 
Asia  kept  pace  with  the  general  increase.  Cattle  in  North  America, 
Central  America,  and  the  West  Indies  increased  about  13  per  cent. 
Europe  actually  reported  a  loss,  which  amounted  to  less  than  1  per 
cent.  It  is  highly  probable,  however,  that  the  cattle  population  of 
Europe  on  January  1,  1928,  was  equal  to  that  recorded  in  the  pre- 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY  115 

war  years.  Indications  (table  57)  point  to  a  reduction  in  numbers  in 
1926  compared  with  1924.  Relatively  low  prices  prevailed  on  world 
markets  during  1926,  and  from  the  evidence  on  hand  the  world 
supply  of  beef  and  veal  was  apparently  smaller  in  1927  than  in  1926. 
The  direction  of  cattle  and  beef  price  movements  in  all  of  the  world's 
important  markets  has  been  upward  generally  since  the  middle  of 
1927,  with  the  trend  particularly  marked  since  January,  1928. 

With  the  prohibition  of  imports  from  many  of  the  surplus-produc- 
ing countries  of  the  world  on  account  of  the  disease  situation,  and 
with  the  ability  of  this  country  to  apparently  supply  its  own  demands, 
conditions  abroad  may  at  first  appear  to  have  but  little  influence  on 
the  cattle  industry  in  the  United  States.  However,  the  world  situation 
does  have  an  influence  on  Canada,  and  the  stronger  the  European 
market  the  less  likelihood  there  is  of  imports  into  the  United  States. 
This  may  be  the  case  in  the  future  with  Mexico  also.  An  increase  or 
decrease  in  offerings  from  Argentina,  economic  conditions  in  Europe, 
etc.,  exert  influences  which  are  felt  in  some  measure  in  this  country. 

Brief  statements  with  reference  to  various  continental  areas  and 
to  the  more  important  countries  in  those  sections  should  prove  to  be 
of  interest  and  of  value  to  the  cattlemen. 

North  and  Central  America  and  West  Indies. — While  the  1921- 
1925  data  point  to  an  increase  of  some  13  per  cent  in  numbers  of  cattle 
over  the  pre-war  period,  1909-1914,  there  has  been  somewhat  of  a 
decrease  during  the  past  three  years.  Decreases  in  the  United  States 
have  been  offset  to  some  extent  by  increases  in  Mexico  and  Cuba.  The 
Canadian  cattle  population  has  decreased  less  than  that  of  the  United 
States  since  1921. 

The  economic  status  of  the  cattle  industry  in  Canada  is  of  primary 
interest  to  the  cattlemen  of  the  United  States.  Indirectly,  however, 
conditions  in  the  Argentine  meat  trade  with  Great  Britain  influence 
the  amount  of  Canadian  beef  seeking  an  American  market.  While 
the  Canadian  cattle  population  is  small  compared  with  that  of  the 
United  States,  the  northern  country  has  a  surplus  of  beef.  There  has 
been  some  decrease  in  the  number  of  cattle  since  1921,  but  this  decrease 
has  not  been  so  great  as  that  in  the  United  States.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  number  of  cattle  in  Canada  during  the  post-war  years  has  been 
approximately  50  per  cent  greater  than  in  the  pre-war  years. 

The  total  exports  of  cattle  (exclusive  of  calves)  have  been  slightly 
larger  since  the  war  than  during  the  pre-war  years.  The  number 
entering  the  United  States  dropped  materially  until  1925.  No  distinct 
trend  is  shown  in  the  exports  of  calves,  although  an  unward  movement 


116 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


was  apparent  during  the  four  years  1922-1926.  Compared  with  pre- 
war years,  exports  of  fresh  beef  from  Canada  since  the  war  have  been 
large.  The  cattle  industry  received  considerable  stimulus  during  the 
war,  and  while  supplies  have  decreased  somewhat,  the  surplus  has  been 
far  greater  during  the  past  few  years  than  it  was  in  the  pre-war 
period. 

TABLE  57 
Number  of  Cattle 


Country 


Belgium 

Czechoslovakia^ 

Denmark 

Esthonia 

Finland* 

France 

Germany 

Gr.  Britain  and  N.  Ireland 

Hungary 

Irish  Free  State 

Latvia* 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg*! 

Norway 

Roumania*t 

Soviet  Russiaf 

(Europe  and  Asia) 

Spain 

Yugoslavia*t 

Europe  totals 

Canada 

Costa  Rica*t 

United  States 

Mexico*t 

Jamaica* 

North  and  Central  Am- 
erican totals 

Chile*t 

British  Guiana*f 

South  America 

Formosa 

India: 

British  Provinces* 

Dutch  East  Indies: 

Java  and  Madura* 

Other  Provinces* 

Siam* 

Asia  totals 

Algeria* 

Basutoland* 

Belgian  Congo* 

Gold  Coast* 

Egypt 


Number  of  head  (in  thousands) 


1913 


1,849 

4,596|| 

2.254J 

478|| 

1,606|| 

15,338 

18,474 

7,726 

2,1501 

4,134 

912 

918 

102|| 

1,134 


60,3002 


2,879 


59,852 

6,656 

333| 

55,833 


116 

62,605 

2,084 

81 


138 

112,000 

3,243  4 
712^ 
2,360 
118,453 


437 

500 

50 

637 


1919 


1,286 

4,377§ 

2,188 

420§ 

1,825 

12,789 

16,524 

8,242 

2,148§ 

4,249 

768§ 

865§ 

89 

l,050i 

4,730§ 


3,397 
4,8343 
55,751 
10,085 


70,261 
2,163§ 
170 

80,516 
2,163 

79 


113 

117,559§ 

3,016 

780 

2,542 

124,010 

1,093 

58P 

500 

76 

505 


1924 


1,628 


2,667 

502 

1,865 

13,749 

17,326 

7,794 

1,887 

4,268 

911 

1,285 


1,114 
5,399 
55,900 

3,435 

3,870 

58,431 

9,461 

426 

64,507 

2,363 

112 


102 


100 

117,250 

3,253 

877 

2,972 

124,452 

794 

603 

510 

84 


1926 


1,712 
4,691 
2,840 
599 
1,871 
14,282 
17,195 


8,115 
1,839 
3,947 

916 
1,396 

101 

1,200 

4.798 

63,000 

3,436 

3,768 

59,348 

8,751 

433 

59,148 

5,585 

133 

68,441 

1,918 

135 


92 

119,492 

3,493 

850 

3,872 

127,769 

892 
631 
480 
85 
722 


1927 


1,739 


2,912 
634 


14,941 

17,983 

8,176 

1,805 


955 


1,209 
4,992 


9,172 
57,521 


849 


Increase  (+)  or  decrease  (— ) 
in  1926  compared  with 


1913 


-  7.4 
+  2.1 
+  26.0 


+  25 

+  16 

-  6 

-  6 
+  5 

-  14 

-  4 
+ 

+  45 

-  1 
+  5 


+     4.5 


+  37.6 
+  30.0 
+     3.0 


+  14.7 


+  9.3 
-  8.0 
+  66.7 


-  33.3 

+     6.7 

+  7.7 
+  19  4 
+  64.1 
+     7.9 

-  19.5 
+  44  4 

-  4  0 
+  70.0 
+  13.3 


1919 


33.1 

7.2 
29.8 
42.6 


2. 
12 
4 
-     1 

-  14 

-  7. 
+  19. 
+  54. 
+  13. 
+  14. 
+     I 


+     1.1 

-  22.1 
+     6.5 

-  9.2 


-  18.1 
+158.2 

-  21.8 

-  15  0 

-  11.0 
+  70.9 


-  18.6 

+     1.5 

+  15.8 

+  9.0 

+  52.3 

+  3.1 

-  18.4 
+     8.6 

-  4.0 
+  11.8 
+  43.0 


1924 


+     5.2 


+  6.5 

+  19  3 

+  .3 

+  3.9 

-  .8 
+  4.1 

-  2.5 

-  7.5 
+  .5 
+  8.6 


+  7.7 
-  11  1 
+  12.7 


-  2.6 
+  1.6 

-  3.2 
+  1.6 

-  7.2 
+136.4 
+  18.7 


+  32.4 


-  8.0 
+  1.9 

+  7.4 

-  3  1 
+  30.3 
+  2.7 


12.3 
4.6 
5  9 
1.2 
4.8 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


117 


TABLE  57—  (Continued) 


Country 


Kenya*t  (of  natives) 

(of  Europeans). 

French  Morocco* 

Nigeria*! 

Uganda* 

South  West  Africa  Prot." 

South  Rhodesia* 

Tanganyika* 

Tunis* 

Union  of  South  Africa*. . 
Africa  totals 


Australia: 

New  South  Wales* 

Other  states  and  northern 

territory* 

New  Zealand 


Oceania  totals . 
General  totals.. 


Number  of  head  (in  thousands) 


1913  1919 


675  « 


739 
206 
695 

2,700 
217 

5,7971 
13,761 


2,823 


2,0201 


13,504 
268,175 


2,372§ 
138 
1,322 
2,394§ 
575 
450§ 
1,331 
3,1473 
254 ' 
6,852 » 
16,626 


3,281 


9,618 
3,035 


15,934 
292,837 


1924 


3,000 

190 

1,683 

2,751 

1,227 

550 

1,921 

3,800 

400 

9,315 

21,576 


3,251 


10,419 
3,563 


17,233 

295,772 


1926  1927 


200 

217 
955 
864 
342 

572 
102 
472 
308 
9,738 
23,299 


2,876 


10,343 
3,452 


16,671 
295,528 


2,189 


3,242 


Increase  (+)  or  decrease  (—) 
in  1926  compared  with 


1913 


+189. 


+  81.6 
+179.0 
+202  3 
+  65.6 
+  41.9 
+  68.0 
+  69.3 


+  19 
+  70 


+  23.5 
+  10.2 


1919 


-  12  3 


+    7.5 
+  13.7 


4.6 


-  11  5 


-  0.7 

-  3.1 


-  3.3 

-  01 


Notes. — *  For  those  countries  marked  thus  1925  and  1923  were  taken  instead  of  1926  and  1924. 

t  The  countries  marked  thus  are  not  included  in  the  totals— t  1909,  §  1920,  ||  1910, 1  1911,  «  1918,  2 1921, 
s  1916,  "1915. 

Sources  of  data:  International  Institute  of  Agriculture,  Number  of  cattle.  International  Review  of 
Agriculture  1927  (3):  68.  1927.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Cattle  and  beef.  Foreign  Crops  and 
Markets  15  (7) :  219-221.   1927. 


TABLE  58 

Cattle  in  Canada,  1910-1927 

(Thousands) 


Year 

Total  cattle 

Milk  cows 

Other  cattle 

Year 

Total  cattle 

Milk  cows 

Other  cattle 

1910 

7,115 

2,854 

4,261 

1919 

10,085 

3,548 

6,537 

1911 

6,526 

2,595 

3,931 

1920 

9,572 

3,505 

6,068 

1912 

6,432 

2,604 

3,827 

1921 

10,207 

3,738 

6,469 

1913 

6,656 

2,740 

3,916 

1922 

9,720 

3,746 

5,974 

1914 

6,037 

2,673 

3,364 

1923 

9,246 

3,737 

5,509 

1915 

6,066 

2,667 

3,399 

1924 

9,461 

3,727 

5,734 

1916 

6,594 

2,833 

3,761 

1925 

9,307 

3,830 

5,477 

1917 

7,921 

3,202 

4,719 

1926 

8,751 

1918 

10,046 

3,539 

6,507 

1927 

9,172 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1916,  Dominion  Bur.  of  Statistics.  Canada  Yearbook  1918:  41.  1919.  1917-1922, 
ibid.  1922-23:  263.  1924.  1923-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Cattle  and  beef.  Foreign  Crops 
and  Markets  15  (7) :  222,  239.  1927.  1926-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Cattle  and  beef.  Foreign 
Crops  and  Markets  17  (6) :  209,  1928. 


118 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Large  sections  of  Mexico,  especially  the  interior  plateaus  and 
southern  mountain  valleys,  possess  climatic  and  other  conditions  that 
are  favorable  to  the  raising  of  livestock.  The  United  States  is  the 
principal  market  for  Mexican  cattle,  which  are  primarily  stockers  and 
feeders.  From  1906  to  1914  there  was  a  steady  increase  in  the  number 
sent  to  the  United  States,  over  625,000  head  being  sent  during  the 
latter  year.  Exports  to  the  United  States  fell  rapidly  during  and 
after  the  world  war  period.  On  account  of  the  disturbed  state  of  the 
country  the  cattle  population  of  Mexico  was  at  a  low  point  in  1920. 


TABLE  59 
Exports  of  Cattle  and  Calves  from  Canada,  1913-1927 


Cattle 

Calves 

Year 

Total 

To  Great 
Britain 

To  United 
States 

Total 

To  Great 
Britain 

To  United 

States 

1913 

193,714 
147,945 
193,352 
106,278 
150,044 
203,481 
467,642 
240,660 
174,552 
212,772 
160,771 
183,242 
204,378 
176,343 
216,209 

9,878 

189,383 

145,722 

179,016 

104,227 

148,077 

200,666 

453,606 

236,642 

135,257 

189,760 

96,873 

97,847 

86,748 

92,962 

204,336 

22,581 
31,974 
55,903 
60,343 
47,123 
36,703 
78,848 
74,519 
57,695 
27,955 
24,219 
35,359 
62,814 
65,625 
79,065 

22,486 

1914 

31,939 

1915 

1,752 

55,860 

1916 

60,310 

1917 

47,014 

1918 

36,594 

1919 

159 

320 

33,053 

18,475 

57,672 

79,435 

110,868 

79,985 

8,263 

78,703 

1920 

74,428 

1921 

57,623 

1922 

27,720 

1923 

24,074 

1924 

35,178 

1925 

62,313 

1926 

65,313 

1927 

78,668 

Sources  of  data:  1913-1924,  U.  S.  Tariff  Commission.  The  cattle  industries  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada.  Spec.  Pub.  p.  14.  1925.  1925-1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Cattle  and  beef,  Foreign 
Crops  and  Markets  15  (7) :  235,  1927.  1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Cattle  and  beef.  Foreign 
Crops  and|Markets_17  (6) :  226,  1928. 


Considerable  shipments  have  been  made  from  the  United  States  into 
Mexico  since  1919  for  the  purpose  of  restocking  Mexican  ranches.  In 
1921,  over  138,000  head  were  shipped.  During  the  eight  years,  1919- 
1927,  total  importations  into  Mexico  have  been  far  larger  than  expor- 
tations.  If  census  data  and  estimates  of  the  Mexican  cattle  population 
are  correct,  it  is  highly  probable  that  restocking  is  about  complete  as 
compared  with  pre-war  years.  In  1926,  for  the  first  time  since  1920, 
Mexican  imports  into  the  United  States  exceeded  exports  of  this 
country  to  Mexico. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


119 


TABLE  CO 

Exports  of  Fresh  Beef  from  Canada,  1910-1927 

(Thousand  pounds,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Fiscal  year 

To 

To 

To 

ended 

Total 

Great 

United 

all  other 

Mar.  31 

exports 

Britain 

States 

countries 

1910 

1,318 

828 

49 

442 

1911 

974 

482 

2 

490 

1912 

949 

274 

6 

669 

1913 

1,571 

783 

19 

769 

1914 

13,133 

191 

12,638 

305 

1915 

18,828 

1,330 

17,037 

461 

1916 

47,223 

13,912 

9,433 

24,077 

1917 

45,546 

15,179 

10,040 

20,327 

1918 

86,565 

32,768 

12,673 

41,124 

1919 

125,803 

91,645 

32,966 

1,192 

1920 

103,900 

28,731 

34,418 

40,751 

1921 

51,999 

8,884 

35,838 

7,277 

Calendar 

years 

1922 

26,340 

6,232 

18,584 

1,525 

1923 

22,772 

6,232 

13,087 

3,452 

1924 

23,207 

6,364 

9,808 

7,034 

1925 

34,628 

10,423 

10,105 

14,099 

1926 

27,234 

3,517 

16,242 

7,475 

1927 

56,742 

581 

51,473 

4,688 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1921,  U.  S.  Tariff  Commission.  The  cattle  industries  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  Spec.  Pub.  p.  14,  1925.  1922-1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Cattle  and  beef.  Foreign 
Crops  and  Markets  15  (7) :  235,  1927.  1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Cattle  and  beef.  Foreign 
Crops  and  Markets  17  (6) :  226,  1928. 


TABLE  61 

Number  of  Cattle  in  Mexico 


Year 

Number  head 

1902 

5,142,457 

1920 

2,163,000 

1923 

2,363,427 
2,187,867 
5,584,892 

1924 

1926 

Sources  of  data:  1902,  1920,  U.  S.  Tariff  Commission,  Cattle  and  beef  in  the  United  States.  Tariff 
Information  Series  30:  54;  1922.  1923,  1924,  1926:  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Mexican  livestock  census. 
Foodstuffs  'Round  the  World.  Foreign  Notes  on  Meats,  Fats,  Oils  and  Livestock  (mimeographed). 
Jan.  20,  1928. 


120 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  62 
Trade  in  Live  Cattle  Between  the  United  States  and  Mexico,  1910-1927 


Fiscal 
year 

General 

imports  into 

the  United 

States  from 

Mexico 

Domestic 

exports  from 

the  United 

States  to 

Mexico 

Calendar 
year 

General 
imports  into 
the  United 
States  from 

Mexico 

Domestic 

exports  from 

the  United 

States  to 

Mexico 

1910 

188,141 
177,981 
315,227 
391,477 
625,253 
346,004 
197,788 
183,827 
105,470 

5,149 
6,513 
9,457 
8,358 
7,230 
829 
3,990 
4,324 
7,777 

1919 

90,541 
58,926 
13,874 
30,127 

23,923 

1911..  . 

1920 

27,758 

1912 

1921 

138,239 

1913 

1922 

71,173 

1914 

1923 

26,525 

1915 

1924 

11,367 
24,169 
54,079 

54,785 

1916 

1925 

73,245 

1917    .. 

1926 

17,458 

1918 

1927 

Sources  of  data:  Imports  1910-1924  and  exports  1910-1923,  U.  S.  Tariff  Commission.  The  cattle  indus- 
tries of  the  United  States  and  Canada.  Spec.  Pub.  1S25.  Imports  1925-1926  and  exports  1924-1926,  U.  S. 
Dept.  Commerce.   Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United  States  1924,  1925,  1926. 


South  America. — South  America  has  the  largest  cattle  surplus  in 
the  world.  Between  1909-1914  and  1921-1925  the  cattle  population 
increased  approximately  27.5  per  cent.  The  increases  have  been 
general  over  South  America,  especially  in  Argentina  and  Colombia. 

Accurate  current  data  on  the  cattle  industry  in  Argentina  are 
somewhat  difficult  to  obtain.  The  present  number43  of  cattle  is  esti- 
mated at  30,000,000.  The  census  for. December  31,  1922,  gave  the 
number  as  37,065,000,  an  increase  of  almost  50  per  cent  over  the  pre- 
war period. 

Argentina  is  by  far  the  largest  exporter  of  beef,  particularly  of 
fresh  beef.  This  position  has  been  reached  during  the  last  twenty-five 
years,  partly  as  a  result  of  the  decreasing  American  beef  and  cattle 
surplus  and  partly  because  of  changes  in  management  which  have 
greatly  increased  its  beef  surplus. 

Exports  of  frozen  and  chilled  beef  have  shown  a  definite  and 
distinct  trend  since  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  While 
exports  were  stimulated  during  the  war  they  did  not  reach  a  peak 
until  1924  and  1925.  During  the  latter  two  years  exports  of  frozen 
and  chilled  beef  exceeded  those  of  the  war  period  by  over  50  per  cent. 
Recent  information  gives  indications  of  a  smaller  slaughter  during 
1927  than  in  the  peak  years  1924  and  1925.  If  estimates  of  the  cattle 
population  made  during  1927  are  correct,  the  surplus  from  the  Argen- 
tine should  be  lower.     While  exports  do  not  enter  the  United  States 


43  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.     The  world  situation  in  cattle  and  beef. 
Foreign  crops  and  Markets  15  (7)  :217.     1927. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEP    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


121 


on  account  of  quarantine  regulations,  Argentine  exports  enter  the 
English  and  continental  markets,  thereby  having  an  effect  on  Canadian 
exports. 

TABLE  63 

Exports  of  Beef  from  Argentina,  1900-1927 

(Thousand  tons,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Frozen  and  chilled 

Total 

Jerked 

Year 

To  United 
Kingdom 

To  United 

States . 

To  other 
countries 

Canned 

1900 

27 
48 
60 
67 
90 
141 
150 
145 
196 
231 
278 
332 
362 
391 

27 
49 
77 
90 
108 
168 
170 
152 
199 
232 
280 
345 
378 
404 

18 
27 
25 
14 
13 
28 

5 
12 

7 
13 
10 
13 

8 

4 

2 

1901 

2 

17 

23 

18 

28 

19 

8 

4 

1 

2 

13 

16 

9 

1 

1902 

2 

1903 

4 

1904 

3 

1905 

3 

1906 

1 

1907 

2 

1908 

2 

1909 

7 

1910 

13 

1911 

17 

1912 

20 

1913 

4 

14 

1914 

340 

65 

2 

407 

3 

14 

1915 

330 

44 

26 

400 

35 

1916 

395 

10 

67 

471 

1 

49 

1917 

313 

2 

121 

435 

8 

111 

1918 

306 

1 

239 

546 

3 

211 

1919 

323 

2 

117 

442 

9 

137 

1920 

386 

7 

66 

459 

3 

15 

1921 

391 

1 

39 

430 

3 

18 

1922 

430 

1 

22 

454 

7 

40 

1923 

503 

1 

82 

586 

5 

75 

1924 

563 

2 

243 

808 

17 

90 

1925 

510 
574 
608 

228 
150 
167 

738 
725 

777 

15 
10 
9 

77 

1926 

1 
2 

1927 

Sources  of  data:  1900-1924,  Arner,  G.  B.  L.  The  cattle  situation  in  Argentina,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  mimeo- 
graphed report,  pp.  50-52;  1924.  1925-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Exports  of  beef  from  Argentina.  Foreign 
Crops  and  Markets  17  (6) :  237;  1928. 


To  a  considerable  degree,  the  extent  and  rapidity  with  which  beef 
production  may  expand  appears  to  depend  primarily  on  the  markets 
of  western  Europe.  With  the  passing  of  the  world  depression  in  the 
cattle  industry  it  is  probable  that  continued  expansion  will  occur, 
as  no  other  country  in  the  world  has  a  comparable  area  so  admirably 
adapted  to  the  best  forage  crops  and  corn  combined  with  a  year-long 
grazing  system. 

From  the  standpoint  of  numbers  of  cattle,  Brazil  ranks  next  to 
Argentina.  The  Brazilian  movement  of  beef  did  not  attain  importance 


122  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

until  the  world-war  period.  Since  the  war  exports  of  beef  have  been 
somewhat  erratic,  showing  no  pronounced  trend.  Live-cattle  exports, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  large,  amounting  in  some  years  to  over  one 
million  head.  Brazil  has  great  potential  possibilities  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  cattle  industry  and  will  undoubtedly  be  a  factor  which 
must  be  reckoned  with  in  the  future. 

Uruguay  is  the  only  other  South  American  country  that  has  as  yet 
exported  frozen  or  chilled  beef  in  large  quantities,  although  Brazil 
and  Paraguay  have  sent  out  rather  small  amounts.  While  the  number 
of  cattle  has  apparently  not  increased  greatly  since  the  war,44  the 
exports  of  beef  and  beef  products  during  1925  and  1926  were  three 
times  greater  than  the  average  of  the  pre-war  years,  1911-1913. 

Europe. — While  European  production  of  beef  is  greater  than  that 
of  any  other  equal  area  of  the  world,  it  is  the  one  great  area  of 
deficiency  in  beef  and  beef  products.  On  account  of  the  war  devasta- 
tions, estimated  average  yearly  totals  of  cattle  were  almost  1  per  cent 
lower  during  1921-1925  than  for  the  five-year  period  1909-1914. 
While  France,  Germany,  Belgium,  and  Jugoslavia  showed  decreases, 
most  of  the  other  European  nations  either  maintained  status  quo  or 
gained  in  cattle  population.  Every  indication  points  to  an  increase 
in  the  number  of  cattle  since  the  close  of  the  war  so  that  at  present 
(1928)  numbers  are  apparently  on  a  level  with  the  pre-war  figures. 

In  1927,  the  cattle  population  of  France  had  almost  reached  the 
pre-war  average  for  1909-1913.  France  is  consuming  much  more 
chilled  and  frozen  beef  than  before  the  war,  imports  in  1927  aggre- 
gating 121,000,000  pounds  compared  with  5,098,000  in  1913.  The 
1926  figures,  however,  are  considerably  below  those  of  1925  or  1924. 
This  decrease  may  be  expected  to  continue  with  the  increase  in  the 
cattle  population. 

Imports  of  fresh,  chilled,  and  frozen  beef  into  Germany  during  the 
five  years  1923-1927,  have  been  many  times  larger  than  those  in  1913. 
The  increase  between  1923  and  1925  was  almost  150  per  cent.  From 
1925  to  1927  imports  of  beef  products  were  almost  stationary  but 
larger  numbers  of  live  cattle  entered  the  country.  This  increase  in 
imports  into  Germany  might  have  been  expected  owing  to  the  depletion 
of  the  cattle  population  during  the  war.  Efforts  have  been  made  to 
bring  the  livestock  population  back  to  pre-war  numbers.  It  will  be 
noted  (able  64)  that  the  number  of  cattle  in  1927  was  almost  equal 
to  the  number  in  1913,  while  the  number  of  swine  exceeded  that  of  the 
pre-war  year. 

44  Number  of  cattle  in  Uruguay,  1908,  8,193,000;   1924,  8,432,000. 


BUL.  461]      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


123 


With  the  tendency  for  the  German  livestock  population  to  increase 
and  with  an  apparently  steady  consumption,  there  does  not  seem  to  be 
any  reason  for  greatly  increased  importations  into  Germany. 

The  trade  in  meat  products  in  Russia  has  been  comparatively 
unimportant;  the  large  population  does  not  permit  an  extensive 
export  trade,  nor  under  normal  conditions  is  an  import  trade  required 
to  augment  domestic  production,  since  the  country  supplies  its  own 
requirements.  Data  with  reference  to  the  cattle  population  point  to 
a  considerable  increase  (approximately  30  per  cent)  in  1925  compared 
with  1909-1913. 

TABLE  64 

Head  of  Livestock  in  Germany,  December  1,  1913,  1926,  1927 

(Present  boundaries;  thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Horses.. 
Cattle.... 
Sheep... 
Swine.... 
Goats  ... 
Poultry 


1913 

1926 

3,807 

3,873 

18,474 

17,221 

4,988 

4,080 

22,533 

19,424 

3,164 

3,484 

71,907 

75,705 

1927 


3,805 
17,983 

3,813 
22,880 

3,218 
79,078 


Sources  of  data:  Landbrugraadet,  Den  tyske  Kreaturtaelling  pr.  1.  December  1927.  Landbrugsraadets 
Meddelelser  1928:  112.  Copenhagen,  Denmark,  1928. 

While  the  United  Kingdom  is  the  dominant  nation  in  the  import 
trade  in  beef  and  beef  products,  supplies  produced  at  home  have  an 
effect  on  the  volume  of  imports.  Home  production  since  the  war  has 
been  slightly  less  than  that  for  the  pre-war  years,  although  the  cattle 
population  is  approximately  the  same.  Imports  of  fresh,  chilled,  and 
frozen  beef  during  the  three  years  1923-1925  were  well  above  those 
for  1913,  although  those  for  1926  and  1927  were  considerably  below 
the  1913  level. 

Africa. — While  the  cattle  population  of  Africa  is  relatively  small, 
a  70  per  cent  gain  in  numbers  is  estimated  to  have  occurred  between 
1909-1913  and  1921-1925.  With  the  exception  of  Algeria  and  Egypt, 
gains  seem  to  have  been  general  over  the  entire  continent.  The  largest 
numerical  increases  have  occurred  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  which 
now  has  a  cattle  population  of  approximately  ten  million.  The 
industry  experienced  an  abnormal  expansion  during  the  war  period 
and  a  consequent  depression  during  the  readjustment  immediately 
afterwards.  Exceptionally  large  increases  in  cattle  have  occurred  in 
Kenya   Colony,   Rhodesia,   Tanganyika   Territory,   and   Madagascar. 


124  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Conditions  seem  favorable  to  build  in  the  future  a  cattle  industry  in 
Africa  which  will  indirectly  compete  with  that  of  the  United  States. 

Asia. — While  the  continent  of  Asia  contains  almost  40  per  cent 
of  the  cattle  of  the  world,  the  trade  is  relatively  unimportant  owing  to 
religious  customs,  etc.,  prevailing  over  a  large  part  of  Asia.  It  is  of 
some  interest  to  note  that  Japan  has  greatly  increased  its  demand  for 
beef  since  the  war.  The  number  of  cattle  in  the  Philippine  Islands 
has  more  than  doubled  since  the  period  1909-1913. 

Oceania. — The  number  of  cattle  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand  is 
relatively  small  when  compared  with  world  totals  but  it  is  of  especial 
importance  on  account  of  the  large  surplus  available  for  export. 

Exports  of  beef  from  Australia  fluctuate  considerably  from  year 
to  year.  From  available  data  on  hand  exports  during  the  fiscal  year 
1925-1926  were  approximately  equal  to  those  for  the  calendar  year 
1913 ;  1926-27  exports  showed  a  sharp  decline  compared  with  the 
previous  years,  decreasing  by  47.6  per  cent.  The  number  of  cattle 
in  1927  (11,880,000)  showed  an  increase  over  that  in  the  pre-war 
period  1909-1913  of  approximately  3  per  cent.  Since  the  war  Aus- 
tralian exports  have  been  more  widely  distributed  than  previously, 
seeking  other  outlets  than  the  British  market. 

The  number  of  cattle  in  New  Zealand  has  increased  over  60  per 
cent  since  the  pre-war  years,  1909-1913.  This  augmentation  of  popu- 
lation has  come  about  largely  through  additions  to  dairy  herds.  The 
exports  of  frozen  and  chilled  beef  have  increased  even  more  than  the 
increase  in  cattle  population. 


CATTLE    HIDES 

Hides  have  always  been  one  of  the  most  valuable  by-products  of 
the  cattle  industry,  and  with  the  advent  of  the  modern  packing-house, 
the  tannery  has  grown  up  as  a  separate  enterprise.  The  tanning 
industry  is  one  of  the  few  great  enterprises  dependent  upon  the  meat- 
packing business  which  has  not  to  any  considerable  degree  become  an 
integral  part  of  it.  Clemen45  states  that  the  greatest  percentage 
returns  to  the  packer  come  from  by-products  of  the  steer  (table  65), 
which  are  followed  by  those  from  sheep.  The  percentage  of  return 
for  the  hide  of  the  steer  makes  up  some  8.6  per  cent  of  the  value  of 
the  animal. 


45  Clemen,  Eudolf  A.     By-products  in  the  packing  industry.     410  pp.,  50  fig. 
University  of  Chicago  Press,  1927. 


BUL.  461  j      ECONOMIC    ASPECTS    OF    THE    BEEF    CATTLE    INDUSTRY 


125 


Hides  are  separated  into  two  classes  at  the  market,  packer  hides 
and  country  hides.  Packer  hides  are  characterized  as  having  been 
taken  off  uniformly,  cured  and  stored  under  standard  conditions  and 
available  in  lots  of  several  thousand  of  a  grade.  Country  hides  are 
removed  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  skinner,  usually  imperfectly 
stored  and  cured,  show  frequent  cuts  and  gashes,  and  are  available  in 
a  variety  of  grades  made  up  of  small  numbers.  In  addition  to  these 
general  classes,  there  are  a  number  of  further  subdivisions. 


TABLE  65 
Percentage  Money  Beturns  from  Meat  and  By-products  of  Various 

Farm  Animals 


Percentage  returns  from 

Animal 

Meat 

By-products 

Hide  or  pelt 

Steer 

87.3 
92.8 
96.6 
81.4 

4.1 
7.2 

3  4 

4  1 

8  6 

Calf 

Hog 

Sheep 

14  5 

Source  of  data:  Clemen,  Rudolf  A.   By-products  in  the  packing  industry.   4^0  pp. 
>f  Chicago  Press,  Chicago.    1927. 


Jig.    University 


Prices. — Comparable  prices  of  hides  in  California  over  a  long 
period  of  years  are  not  available.  While  it  is  difficult  to  state  definitely 
what  grade  of  Chicago  packer  hides  would  be  exactly  comparable  wTith 
Pacific  Coast  packer  hides,  it  is  estimated  that  75  to  85  per  cent  of 
the  latter  are  comparable  with  those  from  Colorado  steers.  Prices  for 
Colorado  hides  are  available  over  a  long  period.  Since  1923  it  has 
been  possible  to  obtain  the  average  monthly  selling  price  of  hides  at 
San  Francisco. 

From  1893  to  the  outbreak  of  the  war  the  trend  of  cattle  hide 
prices  was  upward.  Before  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War,  hide 
and  leather  prices  began  to  rise  rapidly.  With  the  stimulation  caused 
by  the  war,  prices  remained  relatively  high,  although  purchasing 
power  receded  during  the  years  1916-19198.  With  the  deflation  in 
1920  hide  prices  fell  rapidly.  The  restriction  of  European  buying 
power  and  the  decrease  in  military  demand  made  America  the  best 
outlet  for  hides.  Prices  fell  in  1921  to  lower  levels  than  during  any 
year  since  1908.  Values  from  1920  to  1926  were  exceptionally  low 
compared  with  values  of  commodities  in  general.  The  value  of  Colo- 
rado steer  hides  in  1926  showed  a  purchasing  power  of  slightly  over 
50  per  cent  of  the  pre-war  purchasing  power.  During  the  spring  of 
1927  hides  began  to  show  a  very  definite  upward  trend. 


126 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Clemen46  states  that  there  is  a  distinct  seasonal  variation  in  hide 
prices  which  reflects  adjustments  on  the  basis  of  quality.  From 
December  to  April  prices  in  Chicago  decline ;  the  quality  improves 
and  prices  move  upward  from  April  to  November.  Whether  or  not 
prices  in  California  follow  this  seasonality  cannot  be  definitely  stated 
owing  to  the  lack  of  comparable  data. 


TABLE  66 
Imports  and  Exports  of  Cattle  Hides,  United  States,  1900- 
( Thousand  pounds,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


1927 


Year 

Year 

ending 
June  30 

Imports 

Exports 

ending 

Imports 

Exports 

June  30 

1900 

163,865 

7,486 

1915 

334,341 

21,136 

1901 

129.175 

11,162 

1916 

434,178 

13,284 

K02 

148,628 

9,373 

1917 

386,600 

7,365 

1903 

131,640 

12,860 

1918 

267,499 

7,024 

1904 

85,370 

32,728 

Dec.  31 

1905 

113,177 

10,269 

1918 

221,051 

2,338 

1906 

156,155 

10,753 

1919 

407,282 

16,996 

1907 

134,671 

15,397 

1920 

275,324 

11,485 

1908 

98,353 

14,650 

1921 

180,186 

20,693 

1909 

192,252 

12,859 

1922 

324,476 

18,854 

1910 

318,004 

14,635 

1923 

291,969 

23,853 

1911 

150,128 

44,594 

1924 

185,615 

79,706 

1912 

251,013 

17,445 

1925 

166,793 

49,916 

1913 

268,042 

17,972 

1926 

150,452 

51,773 

1914 

279,963 

12,525 

1927 

237,234 

37,552 

Note. — In  addition  to  the  above  large  numbers  of  "pieces"  are  imported  and  exported — 5,142,660 
pieces  being  imported  and  836,555  "pieces"  being  exported  in  1927. 

Calf  skin  imports  in  1927  were  44,070,322  pounds  and  6,973,216  "pieces."  Exports  were  15,096,478 
pounds  and  1,229,118  "pieces." 

Sources  of  data:  1900-1918,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United  States, 
1901-1919.  1918-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Monthly  Summary  of  Foreign  Commerce  of  the  United 
States,  June  issues. 

Since  1900  conditions  in  the  hide  business  have  been  more  unfavor- 
able than  in  the  beef  business.  The  percentage  relationship  between 
the  value  of  the  hide  and  the  value  of  beef  has  been  declining,  although 
there  have  been  two  favorable  periods  in  1902-1908  and  1914-1917. 
Since  the  spring  of  1927  there  has  been  a  marked  improvement  in 
this  relationship.  The  purchasing  power  during  1927  was  still  low. 
There  is  a  lack  of  correspondence  between  hide  supply  and  demand 
which  results  in  sharp  variations  in  prices. 

Imports  and  Exports. — The  United  States  has  been  a  heavy  im- 
porter of  hides  since  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Since 
1900,  imports  have  never  been  less  than  85  million  pounds  and  have 
gone  as  high  as  434  million  pounds. 

4<J  Clemen,  Kudolf  A.  By-products  in  the  packing  industry.  410  pp.,  50  fig. 
University  of  Chicago  Press,  Chicago,  1927. 


BuL.  461]      ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   BEEF    CATTLE   INDUSTRY 


127 


The  removal  of  the  hide  tariff  in  1909  tended  to  stimulate  imports. 
The  war  in  1914  further  stimulated  business,  trade  disturbances  in 
Europe  making  the  United  States  the  best  outlet  for  surplus  supplies. 

During  recent  years  the  supply  of  cattle  hides  in  the  United  States 
has  averaged  between  sixteen  and  one-half  and  seventeen  millions,  of 
which  approximately  three-quarters  are  produced  from  the  slaughter 
of  domestic  cattle,  the  remainder  being  imported  annually. 

TABLE  67 
Average  Monthly  Prices  of  Packer  Hides — Colorado  Steers — Chicago, 

1916-1928 
(Cured  basis,  per  100  pounds) 


Aver- 

Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

age 

1916 

$19.00 

$19.68 

$19.75 

$20.62 

$22.44 

$23.69 

$23.52 

$22.88 

$23.27 

$26.31 

$29.88 

$31.40 

$23.53 

1917 

31  00 

30  50 

29.50 

29.69 

30  50 

31.07 

31.31 

30.81 

26.95 

28.62 

29.56 

28.12 

29.80 

1918 

25.50 

24.25 

21.10 

24.37 

27.75 

29.55 

30.00 

27.00 

27.00 

27.00 

26.00 

26  00 

26.29 

1919 

25.00 

25  00 

20.70 

27.50 

34.60 

39.12 

46.87 

48  00 

39.62 

38.75 

37.70 

33.63 

34.71 

1920 

32  75 

32.62 

30  00 

30.56 

32.25 

32.50 

26.50 

24  50 

22.12 

19.60 

14.75 

14  00 

26.01 

1921 

12  85 

11  00 

8.87 

7.95 

11  25 

12  50 

12  35 

12  50 

12.50 

13.25 

14.25 

15.00 

12  02 

1922 

15  00 

14.44 

11.81 

11.55 

12.81 

14  33 

15.80 

17  50 

18.45 

19.75 

20  00 

18  30 

15.81 

1923 

16.87 

17.00 

17.00 

17.00 

16.62 

13.95 

12.12 

12.25 

11  50 

11.50 

10.62 

10  50 

13.91 

1924 

11.88 

14  00 

12  15 

10  88 

10.70 

11.00 

11.75 

13.40 

13.75 

14.25 

15.18 

14  88 

12.82 

1925 

15.00 

14  63 

13.50 

13  50 

13.30 

12.81 

14  12 

14.80 

15.00 

14.90 

14.12 

13.87 

14.13 

1926 

13.75 

11.75 

11.50 

10.63 

12.10 

11.88 

12.60 

13.31 

13.63 

14.70 

13.63 

13.80 

12.77 

1927 

14.20 

13.13 

13.00 

14.25 

15.94 

17.50 

19.35 

18.63 

20.75 

21.30 

22.65 

23.75 

17.87 

1928 

25.38 

23.20 

22.75 

24.69 

23.20 

21.50 

23.12 

22.05 

22.00 

Source  of  data:  1916-1928,  data  contained  in  letter  from  C.  V.  Whalin,  Marketing  Livestock,  Meats 
and  Wool  Division  of  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  to  W.  E.  Schneider,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  San  Francisco. 


TABLE  68 
Relative  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Packer  Hides- 
Chicago,  1910-1927 


-Colorado  Steers, 


Year 

Relative 
price 

Purchasing 
power 

Year 

Relative 
price 

Purchasing 
power 

1910 
1911 
1912 

85.8 
86.1 
101  5 

83.4 
90.9 
100.6 

1919 
1920 
1921 

221.8 
166  2 
76.8 

105.5 
69.6 
51.6 

1913 

110.3 

108.3 

1922 

101.0 

66.7 

1914- 

116.3 

116  4 

1923 

88.9 

56.8 

1915 

130  3 

127.0 

1924 

81.9 

53.8 

1916 
1917 

1918 

150  4 
190.4 
168.0 

116.5 
105.6 

84.9 

1925 
1926 
1927 

90.3 
81.6 
114.2 

55.9 
53.0 
76.1 

Sources  of  data:  Original  data  upon  which  relatives  are  based  have  been  taken  from  the  following: 
1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statistics  of  cattle,  calves,  beef,  veal,  hides  and  skins.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat. 
Bui. 20:311.  1927.  1916-1927,  table  67,  p.  195.  Relative  prices  on  1910-1914  base  =  100  =  $15.65.  Calculations 
1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statistics  of  cattle,  calves,  beef,  veal,  hides  and  skins.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat. 
Bui.  20:  311.  1927.  1616-1917,  table  67,  p.  195.  Relative  prices  on  1910-1914  base  =  100  =  $15. 65.  Calcula- 
tions by  authors.  Purchasing  power  based  upon  U.  S.  Bur.  Labor  Statistics  All-commodity  Index 
1910-1914  =  100. 


128 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Canada,  Argentina,  Brazil,  and  Uruguay  supply  this  country  with 
a  large  proportion  of  its  hide  imports,  supplemented  by  China  and 
Australia. 

Of  the  hides  imported,  approximately  one-third  are  dry  hides  and 
two-thirds  wet-salted  or  pickled  and  green.  Tanners  prefer  the  wet  or 
green  hides  to  those  that  have  been  dried  because  of  the  ease  of 
tanning  and  lack  of  the  breaks  which  are  found  in  dry  hides  which 
have  been  shipped  long  distances. 

TABLE  69 

Average  Selling  Prices  op  Hides  at  San  Francisco 

(Cents  per  pound.) 


1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

1928 

Month 

Steers 

Cows 

Steers 

Cows 

Steers 

Cows 

Steers 

Cows 

Steers 

Cows 

Steers 

Cows 

13H 
14 
13 
13 

HH 
10H 
9H 

m 

10 

sy2 

8 

10H 
11 
10 
10 

10H 
8H 

m 
m 

8 

6M 
6H 

m 
m 

10 
9 

ii 

12 

13 

13H 

13 

13 

7% 

m 

TA 
7 

m 

9 

10 
11 
11 
11 
11 

UK 
12 

12M 

ii5* 
ny2 

12H 
14 

im 

14 

13M 
13H 
12M 

12M 

11 

11 

11 

11 

12 

13H 

135* 

12 

12 

uy2 
ioh 

10H 

ioh 

10 
10^ 

11 

ny2 

12M 

12H 

13M 

13 
12U 

UK 

w2 
w2 

9 

95* 
11 
11 

12M 
12 

12H 
12 

11^ 
12}* 

13M 

HH 

HM 

12H 

15 

17 

18 

20 

19M 

20 

22 

24 

12M 
105* 
105* 
HH 

14H 

17 

18 

20 

19H 

20 

20H 

21H 

20H 
19^ 

20 

19 

July 

10.8 

9.1 

11.1 

9.0 

13.0 

11.8 

11.77 

11.0 

17.02 

16.35 

Source  of  data:  W.  E.  Schneider,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  San  Francisco,  Calif. 


DISEASE 

Estimates  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  of  the  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture  and  the  California  State  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  indicate  that  the  percentage  of  tuberculosis  in 
cattle  in  California  is  high.  This  particularly  refers  to  dairy  cattle, 
although  the  disease  is  not  entirely  confined  to  dairy  herds.  In  two 
of  the  important  beef-cattle  counties  of  the  state,  Lassen  and  Modoc, 
the  percentage  of  infection  is  low.  These  counties  were  the  first  to 
become  modified  accredited  areas. 

The  Texas  fever  tick  has  been  eradicated  from  California  and  is 
now  confined  to  the  southern  states.  Reports  of  anthrax  and  blackleg 
within  the  state  during  the  three  years  1926-1928  have  been  compara- 
tively few  and  have  not  been  confined  to  any  definite  area  of  the  state. 


